Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

SEVEN HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY OF PARLIAMENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that I have received telegrams of good wishes and congratulation on the occasion of the 700th anniversary of the Parliament of Simon de Montfort from the Speaker of the House of Assembly of the Republic of South Africa and from the Speakers of the First and Second Chambers of the Swedish Parliament. I will have the texts placed in the Library where they can be seen by hon. Members

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH WATERWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to British Waterways, presented by Mr. Ross (under Section 7 of the Act); and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 168.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AVIATION

European Capitals (Shuttle Services)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to British European Airways to start talks with European airlines with a view to setting up an hourly shuttle service between European capitals and London, on which there is no need to book.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Roy Jenkins): This is a matter for the airline. British European Airways takes

the view that it would only be an economic proposition with prematurely obsolescent aircraft, which it does not have.

Mr. Ridley: Is the Minister aware that these services would be more like bus services, on which there would be no need to book? If the Americans can do it, why cannot we do it? Will he have another look at this to see whether we can have the up-to-date air services which exist on the other side of the Atlantic and which people want instead of champagne and smoked salmon?

Mr. Jenkins: I am well aware of the establishment of shuttle services on a limited number of routes in the United States. These are operated with old aircraft, mostly Super Constellations, which B.E.A. does not itself possess. I am anxious that B.E.A. should do what it can—and I am sure that the Corporation is—to improve services on the Paris and other routes.

Mr. Rankin: Has any census been taken of passenger possibilities on these routes?

Mr. Jenkins: Market research is constantly done, but I do not know whether there are details, and it would be difficult to obtain detailed figures, of what would be the response to shuttle services.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is extremely doubtful whether these services in the United States pay even with the use of obsolescent aircraft and that the fares on the shuttle services are more than the minimum tourist fares?

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, I am aware of both those points.

Aircraft Production (Anglo-French Co-operation)

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will now make a statement on Anglo-French co-operation over the proposed joint versatile light variable geometry aircraft, helicopters and an airborne early-warning plane.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: On the variable geometry aircraft I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on Monday, 17th May. Studies are continuing, but


no decisions have yet been made, on possible joint arrangements for helicopters and an airborne early-warning aircraft.

Mr. Marten: While recognising the advantages which flow from co-operation across the frontiers, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman also to recognise that over-dependence on too many of these joint foreign projects for our defence equipment is causing some anxiety, I believe on both sides of the House?

Mr. Jenkins: Of course one wants to avoid over-dependence, but at present over-dependence is less of a menace than was continuing with a position in which we were making too complicated projects for too limited a market and carrying the whole of the R. and D. ourselves.

Sir J. Eden: Is it a fact that the French Government would like the variable geometry aircraft to fly for the first time about 1973 and come into service before 1975? Is it also a fact that when this aircraft comes into service it will be little advanced in its performance capabilities from the TSR2 which the right hon. Gentleman has scrapped?

Mr. Jenkins: It is the case that the French Government requirement may be a little earlier than ours, but there is no difficulty between us about agreeing the dates. On capability; it will be quite a different aircraft, very much lighter in weight than the TSR2 and there will be no comparison.

Mr. Hastings: Can the right hon. Gentleman say something more about the Anglo-French variable geometry fighter project? Is there not a grave danger that Boeing, together with the Germans, will be producing a swing-wing V.T.O.L. fighter which will come on the market earlier than this project?

Mr. Jenkins: No. The Anglo-French project is worth while and I believe that it will have a good market.

B.O.A.C. (Boeing Aircraft)

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Minister of Aviation how many United States Boeing 707–320C convertible aircraft are to be purchased by British Overseas Airways Corporation under their existing option for six of these aircraft, in addition to the two which the Corporation has already purchased.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: As a purely precautionary measure, British Overseas Airways Corporation has arranged an option on six Boeing 707–336C freighters in case its expanding cargo traffic should call for additions to its fleet. My approval would be necessary before this option could be taken up, and this has not been asked for.

Mr. Tuck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the same job would be done by the VC10 convertible version produced by the British Aircraft Corporation? Would he not feel that the purchase of these would be preferable to the purchase of the American version, in order first of all to help home projects and secondly to save much-needed dollars?

Mr. Jenkins: No, I have no idea whether B.O.A.C.'s cargo trade would expand at the rate that it will need to take up this option. One is some distance from that at the present time, but when the question of approving the purchase of the two freighters arose one had to look at the question of whether the VC10 was a substitute, and excellent though the VC10 is as a passenger plane there were certain difficulties about it as a freighter.

Mr. David Price: Do I gather that B.O.A.C. would have required these aircraft freighters if the market developed before a stretched super VC10 was available. Is it therefore a question of time?

Mr. Jenkins: I think it is difficult to measure what B.O.A.C.'s requirements would be, but there are indications that cargo freight will expand very fast. This would be before the question of a stretched VC10 arose.

Mr. A. Royle: Can the Minister tell the House what the cost, in dollars, would be of these new aircraft?

Mr. Jenkins: No, because I have not been asked to approve any purchase. But before being asked to approve it I should look very carefully indeed at the cost. This option does not commit B.O.A.C. in any way and does not commit Her Majesty's Government in any way.

Phantom Aircraft

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Aviation whether the Phantom aircraft to be purchased from the United States


of America will be overhauled in this country.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hastings: The House will be glad to hear what the Minister says. Is this absolutely firm and is there any question at all of any American firm getting work for checks on these aircraft?

Mr. Jenkins: The answer to the first part is "Yes" and to the second part "No".

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Aviation the latest estimated cost of each Phantom aircraft on order; and how this compares with the original estimate.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Minister of Aviation what escalation there has been in the estimates for the United States Phantom aircraft since these were ordered first for the Royal Navy and secondly for the Royal Air Force; what is the total increase in cost; and what steps are being taken to make sure that there is no escalation on the option taken to buy F111 Mark II.

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Minister of Aviation the present estimated cost of the Phantom aircraft ordered for the Royal Air Force; and how this compares with the original estimate.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: As the House knows it is not the practice to disclose actual figures, but there have been some increases in the estimated costs for each version since the original decisions were taken. These increases have been due mainly to additional costs of meeting our special design requirements and of the supply of British engines and equipment.
As regards any possible escalation on the F111 Mark II this, if it occurred, would be a factor to be taken into account in deciding whether to exercise the option.

Mr. Farr: Although I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed reply, may I ask whether there is not a danger that the cost of this aircraft may well exceed what it would have cost the British aircraft industry to produce an equivalent aircraft? Furthermore, in view of the fact that, thanks to the efforts of the

Government, our own aircraft industry is now largely dismantled, even if the costs were to be doubled again we should surely have no alternative but to purchase this aircraft.

Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. There is no question whatever of the costs exceeding the comparable level. A powerful factor was the time scale. I must, however, point out that the increased costs are arising to much the greatest extent from our determination to install British engines and equipment in these aircraft.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Would not the Minister agree that as the F111 Mark II is still not a positive project, nor has it been ordered, it would have been wise to keep the TSR2 running, and certainly flying, so that he would be in a position to negotiate a hard bargain at a fixed price with his American competitors for this aircraft? Has not the right hon. Gentleman weakened our whole negotiating position by not only abolishing the TSR2 and preventing it from flying, but destroying both the tools and the jigs and thus destroying this aircraft for good and all?

Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. I do not believe for a moment that it would have been right to have postponed a decision and gone on at the very high rate of cost of keeping the TSR2 problem going. The trouble with the TSR2 was that the decision was postponed for far too long as it was.

Mr. Edelman: Is it not the case that despite the Minister's desire, confirmed by his Ministry to the aircraft industry on 28th April, 1965, that British equipment should be put in the Phantoms, the Americans are showing great reluctance to buy British equipment, and where they show keenness to do so, they are charged the exorbitant royalty of 10 per cent. for British equipment? Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to encourage the Americans to buy British equipment, which will give employment to British aircraft workers?

Mr. Jenkins: We are not finding these difficulties. Our information does not bear out what my hon. Friend has told us. There are considerable difficulties associated with time scale and cost, and we are doing our best to overcome these.

Mr. Maude: With regard to the Phantoms, can the Minister give us any idea whether the increase in costs above the original estimate arises largely in respect of expenditure with British firms over here fitting British engines, or whether it is due to increases in dollar costs owing to the American modification of the airframe?

Mr. Jenkins: I should not like to give an exact breakdown, but it is known that the greater part of this is likely to arise from expenditure in this country.

Mr. Shinwell: In the interests of British prestige and of the British aircraft industry, will my right hon. Friend repudiate emphatically the statement made by the hon. Gentleman that the British aircraft industry is being dismantled?

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, Sir, most certainly. One has got so used to these statements that it hardly seems worth while contradicting them, but I do so most heartily.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Minister of Aviation which firm or firms have been awarded the contract for the conversion work on Phantom II.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The aircraft are being built to our requirements by the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation and the question of a contract for conversion does not arise.

Mr. McMaster: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the contract for maintaining and servicing these aircraft will be placed in this country, and in placing it will he consider the needs of Short Bros. and Harland?

Mr. Jenkins: The contract will be placed in this country and I shall bear in mind the interests of Short Bros. and Harland. I cannot go further than that.

Sir J. Eden: Is it not a fact that conversion work will have to take place to fit the reconnaissance parts to the Phantom aircraft to provide the Royal Air Force with an effective reconnaissance aircraft which will be denied to it unless a replacement is decided on for the TSR2?

Mr. Jenkins: It is not conversion work in the proper sense. The reconnaisance parts will be fitted on the assembly line.

Military Transport and Fighter Aircraft (Research)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Aviation what guidance he has given to the Aviation industry on research into future projects for military transport and fighter aircraft.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Until the defence review is complete, research into future projects for military transport and fighter aircraft will continue on present lines.
I will then consider what further guidance can be given to the industry.

Mr. Hastings: Does the Minister realise that we have missed a whole generation on these types of aircraft? If we are to remain at all competitive in the defence field the present expenditure on design projects is totally inadequate to maintain the design staff. We are still losing important design staff to America and South Africa. Will the right hon. Gentleman really do his best to hurry up this report and see that adequate work is given to the industry?

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Member asked me about research projects. He seems to be moving over to the question of design within the firms.

Mr. Onslow: Is the Minister aware that this country's capacity for carrying out this sort of research and design is diminishing? In my constituency at this moment an American agent is at work conducting a high-pressure recruiting campaign on men who were working on the TSR2, and will he give the House an assurance that he does not regard this situation as being one for self-satisfaction and smugness on his part?

Mr. Jenkins: I certainly do not regard it as one giving rise to self-satisfaction and smugness, though I also noticed that the recuriting agent was himself an English aircraft worker who had left this country two years ago.

Lord Balniel: As the 1127 which is going into production is a subsonic aircraft, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is a research project for an aircraft of supersonic capabilities which


will be able to protect the 1127 when in operation.

Mr. Jenkins: Of course. The VG aircraft will be supersonic.

Crofting Counties (Light Aircraft)

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will initiate research into the development of a light aircraft suitable for operation in the seven crofting counties.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. John Stone-house): There are already a number of British aircraft which can operate into existing airfields in the seven crofting counties and at least one British aircraft at present under development could use the smallest airstrip.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while this is true I was thinking more in terms of smaller landing strips? Is he aware that there is quite a wide demand in other parts of the world, in Africa and Australasia, for example, for light aircraft of the kind which would suit this requirement? Will he assure me that the Ministry will do its best to ensure that the development of light aircraft will be encouraged in this country? I think the Americans are liable to run away with this, so that this would meet a domestic requirement and possibly at the same time meet an export requirement.

Mr. Stonehouse: That is our wish. There are several new exciting developments going ahead, and at least one of these will be for an aircraft that will be able to use extremely small airfields.

Crofting Counties (Landing Strips)

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Minister of Aviation what proposals or representations he has received for the construction of new landing strips within the seven crofting counties.

Mr. Stonehouse: I know of a number of projected new airstrips in the crofting counties, and I have written to the hon. Member giving detailed information. I welcome the initiative shown by the local authorities and I shall continue to put my Department's technical advice at their disposal.

Mr. Russell Johnston: While I thank the right hon. Gentleman for sending me this letter, may I ask whether he would agree that it would be a better thing for the Ministry to take a firmer initiative in this? As he said in his Answer, the initiative has come from the county councils, and if we are to build up a network of feeder aircraft in the seven crofting counties it would be more desirable that there should be some co-ordination from the centre so that they will not appear merely where there is a local demand.

Mr. Stonehouse: I believe that the system we have now is the correct one. The county councils take the initiative and we will then give them all possible assistance. Some financial assistance can be provided, and we can also give direct practical assistance in the construction of airstrips.

Mr. Marten: Will the Minister resist these requests to put Government money into this sort of local affair and leave it to the local demand for these airstrips?

Mr. Stonehouse: No. We are quite prepared to do this, because we appreciate the value, particularly in Scotland, of these small airstrips. We will give whatever assistance we can, providing the initiative comes from Scotland.

Airports, London (Notices)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Aviation, if he will use the internationally-recognised term, "Transit", instead of, "Transfer", on all notices at London's airports which refer to air travellers in transit.

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, Sir. The terms "Transit" and "Transfer" have distinct internationally recognised meanings. Each is already used as appropriate, except where clarity of direction is best obtained by the single sign "Transfer".

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that when the foreign traveller arrives in London Airport and has a choice of going into immigration or to transit, instead of the internationally accepted term "Transit" he is met with the term "Transfer"? Those travellers who do not know English very well—good old English terms—


really should be met with the word "Transit" which is universally understood.

Mr. Stonehouse: The two signs are approved by the International Air Transport Association. "Transfer" means transfer from one flight to another—another aeroplane altogether—and the airlines themselves have asked that this sign, on its own, should be used, particularly in the Europa Building at Heathrow, so that there will not be any confusion for passengers who do not apply in this particular case, where most transfers take place.

Satellite Launcher

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will now make a statement on the steps he is taking with regard to the development of a British satellite launcher.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: As I informed the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) on 17th March last, a review of United Kingdom interests in space is being undertaken. I cannot make a statement until this review is more advanced.

Mr. Marten: Would the Minister agree that it is in Britain's interests to have a medium thrust launcher for the development of a purely British satellite?

Mr. Jenkins: We will certainly take that fully into account.

Mr. A. Boyle: Is the Minister aware that the space committee of the Western European Union has asked his Ministry for details of our satellite programme and that it got the details very swiftly and efficiently, but the report is now held up in the Foreign Office? Would he now press the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary to give details as soon as possible to the Western European Union?

Mr. Jenkins: I will happily press my right hon. Friend to see that the matters which have gone through my Department are not held up in this way.

Mr. Maude: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will do his best, as soon as possible, to satisfy

the demand there is for some information about what this country is proposing in the next generation of space satellites launcher development, because there is a great deal of interest and anxiety lest we might be left behind?

Mr. Jenkins: I will indeed. Work is of course continuing on E.L.D.O. at the present time, and preliminary work is being done on a small satellite launcher, sometimes called Black Arrow. Work is also going on at both Westlands and Bristol Siddeley, and I am aware that as soon as it is reasonably practical a more comprehensive statement will be desirable.

B.E.A. Flights (Departures)

Mr. George Y. Mackie: asked the Minister of Aviation how many British European Airways flights have taken off within five minutes of the advertised time of departure in the last six months; and how many have not.

Mr. Stonehouse: British European Airways tells me that in the six autumn and winter months from October, 1964, to March, 1965, some 35,000 of its flights departed within five minutes of the advertised time, while the remaining 23,000 did not.

Mr. Mackie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is very far from being the case in flights from Scotland and that fully 50 per cent. of the flights take off late? Is he also aware that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the service even among his hon. Friends? Will he take steps to ensure that B.E.A. is kept up to the mark and that it tries to provide an efficient service which pleases the customer as well as itself?

Mr. Stonehouse: In view of the very important distribution of constituencies in Scotland, I share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety that there should be efficient air communications between the South and Scotland. I have not the details with me of the punctuality of flights to Scotland, but I will see that they are obtained and sent to him.

Mr. Snow: Can my hon. Friend say how this record compares with that of


other international airlines serving international as opposed to regional routes to Scotland?

Mr. Stonehouse: The performance of B.E.A. is about the same as that of the other major airlines in Europe.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, irrespective of what he has said, late departures are about 40 per cent. of the total B.E.A. flights and that much potential traffic is lost to overseas airlines, particularly Air France, because potential customers will not use these delayed flights?

Mr. Stonehouse: I cannot accept that, because the load factors of B.E.A. compare extremely well with those of its competitors.

Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that as a regular traveller on B.E.A. for 20 years I pay tribute to the time-keeping qualities of its service? Is he also aware that in civil flying the governing factor is safety and that nothing must give way to that?

Mr. Stonehouse: I will see that my hon. Friend's remarks are conveyed to B.E.A. I am sure that they will be appreciated.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the best way of keeping B.E.A. up to the mark, particularly with regard to its services to Scotland, would be to encourage competition with the independent airlines? Would he therefore reverse his right hon. Friend's policy on this matter?

Mr. Speaker: That arises on a later Question, I think.

Far East Cargo Routes

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Aviation what representations he received from private British airlines before directing the Air Transport Licensing Board to refuse an application for cargo routes to the Far East.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Before I directed the Board to refuse certain parts of the application, I warned the applicants that I was considering such a direction. I was left in no doubt of the importance attached to the applications and I was urged that the direction should be issued quickly so

that applicants could consider their position. As the hon. Member will be aware, the Board, with agreement of the parties concerned, deferred the hearings so that this could be done.

Mr. Farr: Is it not quite wrong that the Minister should refuse an application of this nature even before it has been submitted and the evidence heard? Further, would not he agree that, admirable though the service is provided by B.O.A.C., Air India and Qantas, in order to assist British exporters there is a real need of a specialised freight service to Australia and the Far East?

Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. It was made absolutely clear by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), when he introduced the Air Licensing Bill which became the Air Licensing Act, 1960, that the power to refuse applications submitted to the Board remained with the Minister and was an essential power when the Minister was convinced that to try to obtain the foreign traffic rights would be inexpedient and against the interests of British aviation as a whole. I was convinced in this case that it would have done grave damage to the future of the B.O.A.C.-Air India-Qantas pool, apart from other difficulties. In these circumstances, I would merely have been wasting the time of a great number of people by allowing the applications to be put to the Board.

Short Brothers and Harland

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of Aviation what arrangements he is making for consultation between Messrs. Arthur D. Little and the Plowden Committee before the presentation of their respective reports on the part to be played by Short Brothers and Harland in the aircraft industry, and on suitable avenues for diversification of the company's activities.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The Government will be kept informed of progress in the investigations by A. D. Little Ltd. into redeployment at Shorts, and by Lord Plowden's Committee of Inquiry into the aircraft industry where this touches on Shorts. My right hon. Friend, the First Secretary of State and myself, will ensure that any information emerging from the inquiries of one of these bodies


which affects the work of the other is promptly passed across.

Mr. McMaster: Does not the Minister feel that it would be better if there were direct co-operation between these two Committees, and, in view of the progress made at Shorts with existing work, will he expedite the presentation and putting into effect of the reports of these two bodies?

Mr. Jenkins: As soon as the reports are received—one by myself and one by my right hon. Friend—we will expedite putting them into operation. It is better to work it in that way because, although the A. D. Little report is concerned entirely with Shorts, while it is an important part, Shorts is only a very small part of the Plowden Committee's report.

Dundee (Air Service)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Aviation what progress he has new made in his support of an air service for Dundee.

Mr. Stonehouse: The Lord Provost's latest suggestions to me in connection with such a service were for assistance towards the airport facilities. Unfortunately, as I have explained to the Lord Provost, the grant requested lies well outside the scope of any Government assistance available towards aerodromes or aerodrome equipment.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would the hon. Gentleman urge his right hon. Friend the Minister to look at this matter again? Would not he agree that it is deplorable that Dundee, as the third major industrial city of Scotland, should continue to have no air service? Would not he further agree that we are unlikely to get this service unless the Government are prepared to underwrite the cost during the period of trials when we need to find out whether the service can be made attractive for local users?

Mr. Stonehouse: I have gone into this matter with considerable care, and I was very pleased to meet the representatives from Dundee to discuss it with them at some length. But their proposal would entail a subsidy, and as we have not found ourselves in a position to provide such a subsidy, we asked Dundee to look

again at the proposals which they put to us. If we introduced a subsidy for Dundee, there would be great demand for one from elsewhere.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Central Codification Authority (Mr. Tony Murphy)

Sir S. McAdden: asked the Minister of Aviation what were the circumstances in which Mr. Tony Murphy secured employment in his Department with the United Kingdom Central Codification Authority; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Mr. Murphy has not been employed with the Authority in question, nor elsewhere in my Department. He worked for two days for a private firm which has offices in the same building as the Authority. The Authority is concerned with stores classification and its work is not sensitive from a security point of view.

Sir S. McAdden: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but does he not agree that it was the most extraordinary story which this member of the Committee of 100 was permitted to publish, making most grave allegations of a lack of security in his Department? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this statement of a member of the Committee of 100 should be treated as having the same lack of relevance as most of the other statements which it makes?

Mr. Jenkins: I agree that it is a most extraordinary story, but I should have thought that the best possible way to treat it as irrelevant was not to put down a Question.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Shepherd.

Sir S. McAdden: Is not the Minister aware that the only way to establish the facts is to ask a Question?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Inspired by these comments, I have gone so far as to call the next Question.

Charter Work (Foreign Companies)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Aviation what was the approximate value of charter work obtained by foreign companies in respect of passengers and cargo originating in the United Kingdom for the latest available year.

Mr. Stonehouse: I have no information about the monetary value of the air charter work obtained by foreign companies, but 291,000 passengers and 5,200 short tons of cargo were carried from the United Kingdom in foreign chartered aircraft during 1964. The figure for passengers includes visiting tourists returning to their own country as well as passengers originating here.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the hon. Gentleman able to say what is the corresponding advantage gained in similar circumstances by British charter firms? If it is very small, will he say what steps he is taking to improve the possibilities for our charterers?

Mr. Stonehouse: British companies are carrying two-thirds of the passenger loads and about half the cargo loads. Therefore, we come out of this fairly well. The advantage is that we obtain rights for our airlines to fly, and if we denied facilities to foreign charter firms we would well find our own firms denied facilities elsewhere.

Mr. Maude: The object of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) was to try to discover whether, in the hon. Gentleman's view, the rights which we obtain in compensation for the rights which we give to foreign companies provide an adequate return to the British economy. Could the hon. Gentleman tell us whether this is so?

Mr. Stonehouse: We have earned £20 million in each of the last four years in our Civil Aviation Accounts. The statistics therefore show that as a country we come out of this extremely well. We continue, however, to keep the matter under close examination.

Mr. Lubbock: Has the present Government's more liberal attitude to inclusive tour licences had any effect in this matter? Will the hon. Gentleman be obtaining

figures to show the relevant proportion of inclusive tour traffic carried by British operators this year for comparison with the figures which he has already given for last year?

Mr. Stonehouse: It is too soon to get a complete assessment but we will, of course, be obtaining all the facts we can.

B.E.A. Routes (Cost and Revenue per mile)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Aviation the average cost and the average revenue per mile to British European Airways on domestic and European routes, respectively.

Mr. Stonehouse: The following are the provisional figures for the year ended 31st March, 1965. On the domestic routes, the average costs per seat-mile were 3·82 pence, and the average revenue 3·54 pence; on the international routes they were 3·54 and 3·76 pence, respectively.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that the London—Belfast route is a profitable one and that during the summer and autumn it is difficult to get places on the aircraft? Will he take steps to see that this situation is improved?

Mr. Stonehouse: I will certainly draw the hon. Member's observations to the attention of B.E.A.

Mr. Snow: Is it fair to assume that either in my hon. Friend's Department or in the B.E.A. organisation there is statistical control to compare these figures with those of other international airlines? If I put down a Question, will my hon. Friend be able to give a comparison?

Mr. Stonehouse: Comparisons which we have made show that B.E.A's performance is extremely good. We think that the Corporation is just as efficient in its domestic routes as in its international routes.

Domestic Routes (Independent Airline Services)

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Minister of Aviation on what British domestic routes independent airlines are now operating scheduled services.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: As the list is a long one, made up of more than 70 routes, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is it not unfortunate that the independents should have ceased to operate to areas which need industrial development and the furtherance of tourism? Furthermore, is it not true that if more independents had been operating, vast inconvenience and even suffering might have been avoided for many thousands of the British public who were the victims of the vicious strike at Whitsun?

Mr. Jenkins: As I pointed out to the Rouse after I made my statement in February, it was entirely by the choice of the independent airline concerned that it withdrew from the routes in question. Although that might have been received with scepticism, as it was, by right hon. and hon. Members at the time, I imagine that they now feel less scepticism at the fact that in the complete absence of any change of policy by myself, the independent operator in question has now announced his return to the routes from 1st July.

Mr. McMaster: Is not the Minister aware that his own statement that he would not grant increased frequencies to these independent operators caused them to withdraw from these routes and that unless they are persuaded to return to them, we cannot hope to have a healthy aircraft industry?

Mr. Jenkins: As I have pointed out, it has been stated by British Eagle—if Press reports are correct—that it is returning to the London-Glasgow route on 5th July. I believe that this operator has indicated that he will also return to the other routes.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: At what frequency?

Mr. Jenkins: At frequencies which he formerly enjoyed under the previous Administration and which I have not restricted. The choice of whether to operate those frequencies was in February, and still is today, a choice for the operator.

Following is the list:

British domestic routes on which summer scheduled services by independent airlines are advertised

Belfast-Exeter and/or Bournemouth.
Belfast-Cardiff.

Belfast-Newcastle.
Belfast-Edinburgh.
Belfast-Enniskillen.
Belfast-Isle of Man.
Belfast-Leeds and Bradford.
Belfast-Liverpool or Cardiff or Bristol.
Belfast-East Midlands.
Belfast and/or Isle of Man-Liverpool.
Belfast-Newcastle or Middlesbrough or Leeds and Bradford.
Belfast-Isle of Man (optional)-Blackpool.
Blackpool-Jersey.
Blackpool-Isle of Man.
Birmingham-Newcastle.
Birmingham or East Midlands-Sandown.
Birmingham-Exeter.
Birmingham-Isle of Man.
Bournemouth-Guernsey and/or Jersey (Vehicle Ferry service).
Bristol-East Midlands.
Cardiff and/or Bristol-Southampton.
Cardiff and/or Bristol-Isle of Man.
Cardiff and/or Swansea-Guernsey and/or Jersey.
Carlisle-Isle of Man.
East Midlands or Gloucester-Guernsey and/or Jersey.
East Midlands-Isle of Man.
East Midlands and/or Cambridge and/or Luton-Jersey and/or Guernsey.
Exeter and/or Plymouth and/or Newquay and/or Isles of Scilly.
Glasgow-Bournemouth.
Glasgow-Manchester-Cardiff and/or Bristol.
Glasgow or Liverpool or Manchester-Newquay.
Glasgow-Enniskillen.
Glasgow or Edinburgh-Isle of Man.
Glasgow-Bournemouth (optional)-Jersey or Guernsey.
Glasgow-Leeds and Bradford and/or East Midlands.
Glasgow-Liverpool or Blackpool.
Jersey-Guernsey-Alderney (all points optional).
Leeds and Bradford-Blackpool.
Leeds and Bradford and/or Blackpool-Bournemouth.
Leeds and Bradford-Newcastle.
Leeds and Bradford-Jersey and/or Guernsey. Leeds and Bradford-Isle of Man.
Liverpool and/or Cardiff-Jersey and/or Guernsey.
London-Chester.
London-Guernsey and/or Jersey and/or Alderney.
London-Swansea.
London-Chester and/or Liverpool.
London-Newquay.
London-Sandown.
London-Liverpool (optional)—Isle of Man.
London-Leeds and Bradford or Middlesbrough or Newcastle.
London-Exeter and/or Newquay.
Luton-Blackpool.
Manchester-Isle of Man.
Manchester-Sandown.
Manchester-Exeter.
Manchester and/or Middlesbrough and/or Newcastle-Glasgow (optional).
Manchester-Blackpool.
Manchester-Coventry-Abingdon-Bournemouth-Jersey-Guernsey (all points optional).


Newcastle and/or Middlesbrough and/or Leeds and Bradford-Jersey and/or Guernsey.
Newcastle - Middlesbrough - Liverpool-Chester - Bristol-Cardiff-Plymouth (all points optional).
Newcastle-Isle of Man.
Newcastle-Blackpool.
Plymouth-Jersey.
Plymouth-Swansea.
Plymouth-Exeter-Jersey-Guernsey (all points optional.
Portsmouth-Guernsey (optional)-Jersey.
Southend or Portsmouth-Jersey or Guernsey.
Swansea-Exeter.

Footnotes

1. This information is drawn from published commercial sources, and it may, therefore, not reflect all the latest changes.
2. When services are shown as operating from "A" to "B" or "C" or "D", there are services in each case from "A" to all of those points, but not necessarily between "B", "C" and "D".
3. Otherwise either end of any service may be regarded as the starting point and no special significance attaches to the broad alphabetical grouping adopted.

Civil Servants (Salaries)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Aviation if he is aware that certain officials in his Department who were employed in positions on lower grades in accordance with redundancy agreements retain their previous salary on personal basis, but that no provision is made for the declining value of such mark-time salaries through inflation; and what steps he will take to adjust this position.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have nothing to add to what my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary said yesterday.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister expect me to be satisfied with that reply when the Answer which I received yesterday was simply "No"? Would he not agree that he should adopt a rather more flexible attitude to the problem when the hardship of his own employees is involved? Does he appreciate that under the present arrangements, people on these mark-time salaries will suffer increasing hardship as the years go by and the value of money goes down and down?

Mr. Jenkins: It is not true that my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary yesterday said only "No". He gave two long supplementary answers which went fully into the matter. I understand the position, but there are difficulties. An arrangement has been

made whereby these people suffer no immediate loss of salary and receive higher salaries than people who do the same job alongside them. It is not possible to go further than that.

Mr. Younger: I fully accept the Minister's great difficulties, but would he not agree that there is a case for looking at the matter a little more carefully, as the people concerned are likely to remain on precisely the same salary for as long as eight or ten years, which, whatever the rights and wrongs, seems to many of us to be rather unreasonable in view of inflation?

Mr. Jenkins: I have looked carefully into the matter, and I will certainly look at it again, but I certainly cannot hold out any hope of a change.

London Airport (Car-Parking Facilities)

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Aviation what action he proposes to take to increase the car-parking facilities at London Airport and to bring down the cost of parking.

Mr. Stonehouse: A multi-storey car park will form part of a new terminal building shortly to begin construction; plans are also being considered to increase the facilities adjacent to the No. 3 Oceanic Building. I can give no undertaking to reduce parking charges.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the parking situation at London Airport is getting steadily worse and that parking at London Airport really cannot be restricted by using the price mechanism—or, at least, it should not be used for that purpose—since people have to take their cars there to permit them to travel further afield? Will the Minister therefore try to increase parking facilities either by an underground car park or something of that nature at a price which will allow people to leave their cars at the airport while they are travelling?

Mr. Stonehouse: There is a further Question down on this and I should prefer to deal with some of these points when it is reached. We are, however, already going ahead with providing new car parking facilities and the car park should be completed by the end of 1968 to hold


about 850 cars. It would, however, be quite unable to cope with the demands which would be put upon it if the charges were reduced.

Mr. Corfield: Does not the Minister appreciate that these very high charges penalise precisely those people whose interests the Government should have at heart, namely, those who have established factories in the North-East or in Scotland who are actively engaged in exports to the Continent and require, therefore, to make short-term air journeys and to be able to leave their cars awaiting their return journeys? Will the Minister look at the problem in this light?

Mr. Stonehouse: As the hon. Member is anticipating his Question, perhaps I should reply now. The fact is that insufficient space is available in the central terminal area at Heathrow for all those who wish to leave their cars there for long periods. If they are allowed to leave their cars there, those who wish to use car-parking facilities for a short-term stay simply will not have the space. We believe that it is better to leave some car-parking space available for those who want to leave their cars for a short-term stay and to encourage those who want long-term parking to take advantage of the off-airfield parking facilities, which are convenient and cheap.

Aircraft Industry (Projects)

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will publish a White Paper enumerating all the projects of the aircraft industry in which public money was involved during the last 14 years, the extent of such involvements in each case, and the eventual fate of each project.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: No Sir. The information is not readily available, and could only be obtained by the expenditure of a disproportionate amount of time and labour.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is too sensitive to the feelings of right hon. Gentlemen opposite? Is it not about time that the public realised the enormity of the scandal of the failure of this industry over the last 14 years?

Mr. Jenkins: I shall bear that in mind. As my hon. Friend is aware, in response to a request from my hon. Friend the

Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) on 14th April I published a list of the cancellations and of the costs which had been involved.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is the one field in which the country can slash expenditure without hurting the living standards of ordinary people?

Mr. Jenkins: We have endeavoured, where we can, without damaging the legitimate needs of the Forces, to make all the economies that were possible.

Mr. Goodhew: Will the Minister offset some of the "knocking" of the aircraft industry by hon. Gentlemen opposite by telling us the export figures for the last five years?

Mr. Jenkins: I am not going to give those figures, which, I am afraid—as the hon. Gentleman knows if he follows these things—are not as healthy at the present time as I hope they will be in future, because I do not want to indulge in that "knocking" which has come far more from that side of the House than from this.

Belfast Strategic Freighter Aircraft

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will now increase the number of Belfast strategic freighter aircraft on order from Short Brothers and Harland.

Mr. Jenkins: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Kilfedder) on 1st February last.

Mr. McMaster: In view of the news surrounding the announcement of the large Russian 700-seater aircraft, will the Minister consider the possibility of using this aircraft as a high density aeroplane to be used by B.E.A. and thus reduce fares, and order perhaps one or two of these aircraft for use by B.E.A. on domestic routes?

Mr. Jenkins: I take it that the hon. Gentleman means order the Belfast and not the Russian aircraft. The form of his question was couched in the other direction.
I have discussed this with B.E.A. I am very anxious, if it is at all possible, to find further use for the Belfast, but, as I have never disguised from the hon.


Gentleman or from the House, this is not an easy problem.

B.E.A. Flights (Spain)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will direct British European Airways, in the public interest, to discontinue its extra flights which support Spanish tourism at the expense of Gibraltar.

Mr. Stonehouse: My right hon. Friend has no power to give such a direction. Restrictions on British European Airway's services would in any case be ineffectual since they would merely result in the transfer of business to other airlines without any likelihood of increased traffic to Gibralter. However, it remains the case that it is cheaper to fly to Gibraltar than to nearby airports in Spain.

Mr. Fisher: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that while Foreign and Colonial Office Ministers have for months been paying lip-service to the idea of giving help to Gibraltar in the face of the severe Spanish frontier restrictions, B.E.A.s policy is the opposite, and that by stepping up the number of aeroplanes flying to Malaga and reducing the number of aeroplanes flying to Gibraltar it is carrying out a policy which is detrimental to Gibraltar and helpful to Spanish tourism? Why cannot the hon. Gentleman intervene to put this right and implement the policy of his colleagues?

Mr. Stonehouse: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's observations on the activities of B.E.A. during the last few months. In fact, B.E.A. continues to operate 11 flights a week to Gibraltar and these flights have not been affected by extra flights to Spain. Furthermore, B.E.A. has been making special endeavours to arrange holidays in Morocco and Tangiers which can be combined with flights to Gibraltar to help Gibraltar in these times.

Mr. Marten: Is not this perhaps the sort of thing which the consumer director who was to be appointed to B.E.A. might have dealt with? What has happened to this consumer director?

Mr. Stonehouse: He will eventually be appointed, but there is no place to appoint him to yet.

Royston Industries Limited

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of contracts and sub-contracts awarded to Royston Industries Limited in connection with the TSR2, P1154, or HS681 projects.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Royston Industries Limited held no contracts or sub-contracts in connection with any of these projects. Three of its subsidiary firms held small sub-contracts in connection with the TSR2 but were not involved in the other projects. It is not usual to disclose the details of firms' contractual arrangements.

Mr. Hamling: Is it not undesirable that former Secretaries of State for Defence should have relations, however tenuous, with private interests in the industries for which they were formerly responsible?

Internal Services, Scotland

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will now take steps to encourage competition in the internal air services with Scotland.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have nothing to add to the statement which I made to the House on 17th February and which was debated here on 1st March.

Mr. Campbell: Has not the recent strike shown how desirable it is that there should be competition rather than monopoly, especially as the only way in which the Minister of Labour could get to Glasgow by air was by a special flight put on by the particular independent airline which the Government had previously discouraged—the discouragement being making it clear that it would not be allowed any more frequencies?

Mr. Jenkins: The fact that the airline in question was able to put on a flight on that day at its own choice underlines the point that I have made, that it was always free to fly, and it has now announced its intention of recommencing scheduled services in July. The choice was, and is, for the airline.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is not the Minister aware that the reason why this airline


has chosen to come back into the field is that another private enterprise airline was proposing to do so, and is not this a classic example of the need for further competition on the airlines to Scotland and the advantages that such competition produces?

Mr. Jenkins: This also indicates that there is an opportunity for competition if the independents wish to provide it.

B.O.A.C. (Carriage of Animals)

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the British Overseas Airways Corporation to prevent unnecessary deaths caused by cramped conditions in the carriage of animals by air.

Mr. Stonehouse: No, Sir; this would not be a suitable subject for a general direction. I understand, however, that British Overseas Airways Corporation already takes special measures to safeguard the welfare of any livestock it carries, and that its reputation in this respect is good.

Mr. Campbell: Will not the Government try to do something, by direction, to prevent the kind of incident that was recently reported in the Press, concerning the deaths of about 300 Japanese squirrels in one consignment?

Mr. Stonehouse: I understand that the squirrels were Korean—but the point is a very serious one. B.O.A.C. is very concerned and has decided not to take consignments of this type in future, in order to avoid a recurrence of this tragedy.

Mr. David Price: Will the Minister bear in mind that there is being built up in this country an increasing anti-vivi-section campaign; that the import of animals, particularly monkeys, is essential to research in this country, and that where there is negligence on the part of B.O.A.C. or any other operator in importing animals for research purposes it strengthens the demand for repressive measures against legitimate biological research in this country?

Mr. Storehouse: That point is extremely helpful, and I will see that it is conveyed to B.O.A.C.

Sir Knox Cunningham: What are the present regulations, and are they being carried out?

Mr. Stonehouse: B.O.A.C. is very concerned to maintain the highest international standards in this respect. I am satisfied that that is what it intends to do in the future.

London Airport (Piers)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will state the reasons for the delay in building the piers for embarking and land passengers at London Airport.

Mr. Stonehouse: The first pier from the Europa and Britannia buildings is now complete and construction of the second will start shortly. Piers will also be added to the Oceanic Building and a new passenger building to be built on the North-East side of the Central Area. Construction has to be carefully phased to minimise interference with airport operation but there should be no undue delay in completing these improvements to the facilities at Heathrow.

Mr. Rankin: Did I hear my hon. Friend say that one of the piers was now complete? In that case, can he say why it was not in use on Monday when I landed at London Airport? Can he tell us why it is not in use, and also when it will be in use?

Mr. Stonehouse: The pier is now constructionally complete, and it will be in use in the next few days. We are anxious to press ahead as quickly as we can with the reconstruction at Heathrow, because we want the facilities there to be up to the highest standards, in view of the great demand made upon them.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman try to persuade the airport authorities to leave the aprons close to the ends of these piers free for the use of aircraft to a maximum extent, and not lumber them up with carriage vehicles and other servicing vehicles? The whole point of investing money on these piers was to enable passengers to move straight from the terminal building to the aircraft without having to em-bus and de-bus.

Mr. Stonehouse: I will certainly bear that point in mind.

Captain Orr: Can the Minister tell me whether the pier will be open in time for the visit of the President of the Board of Trade to Belfast on Friday?

Mr. Stonehouse: I hope so.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: If the hon. Member cannot get the pier completed in time, will he at least get the notices stating that these piers will be completed in early spring brought up to date? Will he also take note of the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) has some complaints about the service?

Mr. Rankin: No. May I congratulate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is some difficulty about allowing two supplementary questions to one Member.

Ferranti Ltd.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Aviation if Ferranti's have now repaid the £4 million excess profit on the Bloodhound missile contract; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made in the House on 17th June last.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that this Question was tabled before his statement last week? Even at the modest rate of 5 per cent. per annum, will not the firm enjoy no less than £670,000 in interest on the £2 million profit that it is due to repay by 1969? Even if there is no legal obligation, is not Mr. de Ferranti honour-bound to repay this sum to the taxpayer?

Mr. Jenkins: It is certainly the case that as the result of this very excessive profit Ferranti Ltd. has had the use of large sums of money—which it would not otherwise have had—building up its business interest-free for a number of years. However, when the sum of £4¼ million was agreed, before the change in the Administration, it was envisaged that there would be no interest, except on arrears.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this sum is microscopic compared to the "bunce" that the industry

has received, as referred to in Question No. 23?

Sir C. Osborne: In view of the fact that the Government freely negotiated this settlement with the company and are satisfied with it, is it not time that hon. Members opposite stopped nagging on the subject?

Mr. Speaker: It is not part of the Ministers' responsibility to say when hon. Members should start refraining from doing something or the other.

Sir C. Osborne: Since this settlement has been arrived at freely by the Treasury and the tax officials, and is regarded as a satisfactory settlement of this problem, will not the right hon. Gentleman advise his hon. Friends to accept it?

Mr. Speaker: It is not part of the Minister's duty to do that.

TSR2 Aircraft

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will allot the three prototype TSR2's to the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough so that it can carry out further tests on them.

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will make the three completed TSR2 aircraft available to the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough for test flying.

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Minister of Aviation what plans have been made to use the prototype TSR2 for research purposes at Farnborough.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Two of the three TSR2s which have been completed will be used for ground tests at the Royal Aircraft Establishment; the third will be used for a programme of research on engine ground running noise in aid of the Concord.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was very deep resentment on this side of the House and in many other quarters at the manner in which he announced the fact that the TSR2 flying programme was not to be permitted, in a Written Answer on the day the House rose for the Whitsun Recess? We should like to know whether


he really considered, on its merits, the case for collecting the maximum amount of data concerning this aircraft. As was asked in earlier Questions, would it not strengthen his hand in negotiations with the United States if the right hon. Gentleman continued to try to obtain the maximum amount of data from these first-class aircraft, which are unique in the world?

Mr. Jenkins: I noticed that the hon. Member and one or two of his hon. Friends expressed resentment at the form of the announcement, and I thought that this was entirely misplaced. Hon. Members opposite would carry more conviction in the substance of their objections if they did not object so frequently to the form in which announcements are made. I had no opportunity of answering Oral Questions until today, and it would have been quite wrong to hold up an announcement, for which the firms and others were waiting, for three weeks after the decision was taken, in order to announce it in an Oral Answer. As for the substance of the matter, I have been most anxious to get the greatest possible research value out of these aircraft without incurring excessive costs. This I believe we have now done. The approximate cost of the programme for the two R.A.E. aircraft will be about £20,000. Had we gone in for a flying programme—the results of which, I am advised, would have been very limited—the cost would have been at least £2 million, and in certain circumstances might have risen well above £5 million.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this aircraft has performed better and fulfilled its promise at a much earlier stage than other aircraft? Is it not thoroughly illogical to consign it to tests on the ground? For the sake of £2 million, surely he will think again?

Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. If hon. Members wish to reopen the TSR2 decision, that is another matter, but, if they wish to gain real research experience, my advice was that it was not worth £2 million and that it might well have been more. I am not able to take this cavalier attitude to £2 million of public money which, apparently, the hon. Member can.

Mr. Royle: Is the Minister aware that there is grave concern in the R.A.F. and

the Services about when the Minister will announce the order for the replacement of the TSR2, namely, the F111? Is the Minister going to rat on his pledge on this, as the Government ratted on their pledge at the General Election on the TSR2?

Mr. Jenkins: There is no pledge on which to rat.

Mr. Maude: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what the test programme on this aircraft at the R.A.E. will involve? Will it involve testing the reconnaissance equipment which might be useful in the F111? Was there ever any suggestion of flying tests being carried out through the R.A.E., and, if so, at what cost?

Mr. Jenkins: The exact details of the R.A.E. programme have not yet been worked out, but reconnaissance equipment, where there is a good prospect of using it elsewhere, can mostly be tested elsewhere. The carrying out of a flying programme at the Royal Aircraft Establishment did not appear practicable.

PRISON COMMITTAL ORDERS (PRIVATE HEARINGS)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. ABSE: To ask the Attorney-General what conclusion the Supreme Court Rule Committee has now reached on the question of judgments leading to imprisonment of parties being given in open court.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): With permission, I will now answer Question No. 37.
The House will remember that when I was asked on 12th May a number of Questions about the making of committal orders in private I said that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor proposed to refer to the Supreme Court Rule Committee the question whether it would be possible, consistently with safeguarding the interests of those concerned and particularly wards of court whose welfare might be damaged by publicity, to require the committal order itself to be made in public.
The Rule Committee met on 3rd June and, in accordance with its decision, the


Rules of the Supreme Court (No. 2) 1965, which were laid before Parliament on 11th June, provide that, where the court decides, on an application heard in private, to commit a person to prison for contempt of court, it must state in open court the name of the person committed, the nature of the contempt in general terms and, if the committal is for a fixed period the length of that period.
I must, however, warn those who may publish any other information about the proceedings, obtained, for example, by interviewing the person committed, that they will still be in contempt of the court to the same extent as they would have been under the old law.

Mr. Abse: May I, first, congratulate the Attorney-General on having the opportunity of giving any oral reply at all in the House?
Would it not be an appropriate occasion, when giving this reply, to thank the Press for its vigilance in having brought to the attention of the country the need for particular concern in matters affecting personal liberty, as in this case? Would not the Attorney-General regard it as necessary that we should look at the substantive matters dealt with under the Rule, in view of the fact that there is widespread opinion that some of these matters could be dealt with within the family circle, and that the judges should not be so manipulated that they have to do the job of parents who have failed?

The Attorney-General: The judges have this burdensome task of acting in loco parentis and I am sure that they would be happy to be relieved of this jurisdiction. But the question raises broad matters of principle. In the meantime, the steps taken by the Rules Committee will, I think, commend themselves to the House.
While appreciating the importance of the functions of the Press in regard to the administration of justice, the House will also bear in mind that the protection of the reputation and character of wards of court is also important and that any disclosure damaging to them in these

delicate circumstances is something which the courts have felt themselves obliged to avoid.

Mr. Hogg: When he is considering the broad questions of principle to which he referred in the last part of his Answer, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that, in recent years, there has grown up an ugly and disreputable racket of seeking to get hold of and corrupt young women who are supposed, rightly or wrongly, to own private fortunes?

The Attorney-General: I am wrapped in curiosity and mystery about this remarkable racket, which may well be the subject of a forthcoming Sunday newspaper publication.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that he has said nothing about the defence which may be put forward by the person committed, and that the mere fact of giving publicity to his committal without saying anything about any defence which he may have made may inflict upon him irreparable damage? What steps are being taken to protect the person committed in such circumstances?

The Attorney-General: The steps which are taken are that, generally speaking, such persons enjoy legal aid. It is implicit in the making of a committal order that, presumably, the judge has refused to accept the defence and explanation of the defendant. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend, with his great experience of the law, must bear in mind that, in these matters, judges behave with complete fairness to the parties.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his statement will be widely welcomed? Does it apply only to wardship cases or to the others which are covered by the Order 44 Rule as well?

The Attorney-General: I think that it is of general application, but the practice of committal privately has only been used, in fact, in wardship cases. This is the effective part of the jurisdiction as far as the Order is concerned.

NATIONAL EXHIBITION CENTRE, CRYSTAL PALACE

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): With permission, I should like to make a statement.
For some time past the Government have been examining proposals for the construction of a National Exhibition Centre. The most promising site for such a centre appears to be the Crystal Palace.
Under the London Government Act, 1963, the Crystal Palace site is the property of the Greater London Council and is held by them for the purposes specified in the London County Council (Crystal Palace) Act, 1951. These purposes include the promotion of industry and commerce.
Two Federation of British Industries committees have looked into this matter. The first concluded that great benefits to industry and, in particular, to our export trade would be derived from the development of a modern exhibition centre in London suitable for major international exhibitions. The second recommended the Crystal Palace as the most suitable site and put forward outline plans for its development. The F.B.I. has obtained and passed on to the Government many assurances of support from trade organisations who participate in or organise trade fairs and exhibitions.
Discussions have been held between the Government and the L.C.C.—now the Greater London Council. I understand that the G.L.C. would be prepared to make the Crystal Palace site available without charge, and to undertake the building of the centre, as part of a joint arrangement for the construction of a National Exhibition Centre. They would, however, expect the Government to participate in the financing of the project.
The Government recognise that an exhibition centre of the kind proposed could be of great value, particularly for the promotion of exports. They welcome the willingness of the G.L.C. to make the Crystal Palace site available, and they consider that the concrete and detailed proposals which will be necessary before a final decision is taken to proceed should be worked out without delay.
I have accordingly asked the Greater London Council to undertake as a matter of urgency the preparation of costed plans

for the exhibition centre, a fully detailed study of its revenue-earning prospects based on support from industry, including the export industries, and an examination of what improvements might be necessary in road and rail access.
I have informed the Council that if the outcome of these inquiries is satisfactory the Government will be prepared to proceed with the project in partnership with it under an arrangement the terms of which are already under discussion with the Council.
In this event our objective will be to have the exhibition centre ready for use in the autumn of 1970.

Mr. Barber: It is a happy change to be able to thank the Government for a welcome statement.
The proposal for a National Exhibition Centre has been under consideration for quite a time and the right hon. Gentleman's statement carries us one stage nearer to the actual completion of the proposal. There are three questions which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will answer.
First, what other sites did he consider before concluding that the most promising was the Crystal Palace, and is he satisfied that this site really is the best from the point of view of communications, whatever other advantages it may have? Secondly, would he say approximately when he expects to receive the costed plans and completion of the detailed study to which he referred? Thirdly, what sort of financial arrangement has the right hon. Gentleman in mind—in other words, what sort of proportion do the Government expect to contribute?

Mr. Jay: I am also happy to find the right hon. Gentleman in so constructive a mood.
The F.B.I. and ourselves have examined all the sites that were put forward. We have not been able to find one to rival the Crystal Palace for suitability. I certainly hope that these investigations can be completed by the end of the year and, if possible, sooner. The financial arrangements, which have not been worked out in detail, contemplate that half the cost would be provided by the Government and the other half probably by the Greater London Council by a suitable loan arrangement.

Mr. Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that the plan includes adequate hotel accommodation in or near the exhibition site, because such accommodation in that part of London is most inadequate? Will he see that adequate car parking accommodation is provided so that we do not get unnecessary congestion in what is an already congested part of London? Will he also ensure that all the traffic going to the exhibition does not have to go along the Brixton Road?

Mr. Jay: It is fully agreed that traffic and parking arrangements are most important. I assure my hon. Friend that when I visited the site we did not go via the Brixton Road.

Mr. Costain: When the President of the Board of Trade said that road and rail communications were being considered, why did he not take into account helicopter services, for is this not a very good site for such services?

Mr. Jay: We will certainly consider that, but the major discussion hitherto has been about road and rail access.

Mr. Snow: Would my right hon. Friend say, even at this early stage, whether he visualises an annual international exhibition or a series of exhibitions, on a continuing basis, possibly sub-divided into various industries?

Mr. Jay: The latter. The proposal is that this centre should be used by the various organisations which arrange exhibitions of different types of industrial products from different industries.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an estimate, even a rough one, of the cost involved? Is he aware that when this idea was first mooted, many years ago, the estimated cost was £12 million, although costs have been escalating all the time, and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it will probably be another five years before the centre is ready? Will he pay attention to the idea that there should be some smaller exhibition halls on the same site so that the whole project can be fully operative throughout the year?

Mr. Jay: I will certainly consider that suggestion. The estimate of the

cost made by the F.B.I. two or three years ago was £12 million, excluding transport arrangements outside the site. We hope that it will not prove to be much more than that.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Would my right hon. Friend assure the House that this scheme, which we all warmly welcome, will in no way damage the National Sports Centre which, after long years of effort, has only just opened at the Crystal Palace?

Mr. Jay: I hope not. I think that the Greater London Council would not support it if there were danger of that happening.

Mr. Peter Emery: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to ensure that the building which is finally put up will not be a massively enlarged aircraft hangar? Will he try to see that, architecturally, we illustrate new thought and concept, probably illustrative of Britain's advance in technical achievement and design, since here is a good opportunity for us to do that?

Mr. Jay: I agree that the design and architecture of the centre is extremely important, but at the moment we are not committed to any particular design.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Would my right hon. Friend have consultations with the Minister of Transport about the public transport facilities in this area? Is he aware that they are particularly poor, especially so having regard to the various uses to which it is now proposed that the Crystal Palace should be put? Will he bear in mind the fact that during the last 13 years the Crystal Palace high level railway line has been closed, with the result that the public transport facilities have become much poorer?

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. It is intended to investigate that matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
In the hope that the Committee need not sit unduly late at today's sitting, the Committee stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill will be continued tomorrow.
It is hoped then to complete the Committee stage at a reasonable hour when instead of the business previously announced for Thursday, the House will be asked to deal with the remaining stages of the Overseas Development and Service Bill.
In these circumstances, the remaining stages of the Monopolies and Mergers Bill will be taken on MONDAY, 28TH. The 20th allotted Supply day will be postponed.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Would the right hon. Gentleman say that the Supply day will be taken next week?
I think that both sides of the House will agree that the Government have taken a sensible decision in deciding not to try to force through the remaining stages of the Finance Bill at today's sitting, although in saying that I in no way mean to diminish our criticism of the Government for introducing such an over-long and over-complicated Bill.

Mr. Bowden: I do not think it unreasonable that hon. Members on both sides of the House should have one full night's sleep in three nights. That is why I have made this proposal.
It is the intention to have the Supply day one day nex week.

Mr. Shinwell: What does my right hon. Friend mean by the Committee not having to sit "unduly late"?

Mr. Bowden: In the circumstances, I should have thought that eleven o'clock would not be unreasonable.

ELECTORAL LAW (MR. SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE)

Mr. Speaker: I undertook to announce to the House the names of the right hon. and hon. Members who have been good enough to accept my invitation to serve on the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law.
They are the hon. Members for the following constituencies: Faversham (Mr. Boston); Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman); Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling); Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger); Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson); Wrexham

(Mr. J. Idwal Jones); Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie); Poplar (Mr. Mikardo); Dagenham (Mr. Parker); Southall (Mr. Pargiter); Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin); Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss); Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney); Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace); Blyth (Mr. Milne); Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton); Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray); Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton); Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry); Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover); Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn); Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark); Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt); Waltham-stow, East (Mr. John Harvey); Melton (Miss Pike); Rugby (Mr. Wise); Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster); Southend, West (Mr. Channon); and Orpington (Mr. Lubbock).
The Joint Secretaries attending the Conference will be Mr. K. Eddy, Home Office, and Mr. S. C. Hawtrey, Journal Office, House of Commons, to whom all communications respecting the Conference should be sent.

Mr. Snow: With great respect, Mr. Speaker—although I fear that it is too late to make this observation—may I draw your attention to the fact that it appears that nobody has been included who represents the overspill area of the Birmingham conurbation?

Mr. Speaker: I was merely describing the constituencies of the hon. and right hon. Members who had accepted my invitation to serve. I was not doing anything else.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: How does the number of hon. and right hon. Members invited compare with previous Committees of a similar sort? The list seemed unduly long, Mr. Speaker, and I wondered how it compared with others.

Mr. Speaker: My recollection is that while this Conference will have 29 Members, made up, as best one can, to be representative of every class of constituency and interest, the last one contained 31 Members; but in that case Members of the other House were included, a practice which I have not followed.

Dame Irene Ward: It is difficult to know, Mr. Speaker, from your statement, the names of hon. Members who have


accepted your invitation, because I cannot carry all their constituencies in my head. Did you invite a woman Member to sit on the Committee?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask whether she accepted?

Mr. Speaker: I very much hope so; if not, I have misled the House in my statement.

INFANTICIDE

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to infanticide.
Each year in this country about 20 mothers are brought to trial, usually at the assize courts, to face a charge that, in theory, can attract a sentence of life imprisonment. They are the disturbed women who, when they have recovered from the effects of childbirth or the effects of lactation, return to reality only to discover that the blessings of motherhood have evaded them, and that for them it has been a curse. A mother returns from her confused or her withdrawn condition to discover that she has killed her own child. Sometimes she has done this in the most ghastly circumstances.
It was a long and particularly hard struggle in the teeth of overwhelming judicial opinion before the law was changed even to give, as it does now, a grudging acknowledgement that babes can be slain, not out of criminal intent but out of mental illness. The main reason why any changes were made was not because of the increasing insight that came with expanding psychiatric knowledge, but because of the robust common sense of nineteenth-century juries. They, despite many admonitions by many judges, refused to bring in a guilty verdict that could send a temporarily insane woman to the gallows.
The history of those times makes it quite clear that juries knew that at or about the time of birth, dogs, cats, sows, white mice, rabbits—all of them—sometimes killed their own young, and they were not prepared to extend less compassion and concern to a mentally sick woman than they would to an excitable bitch. So they defied the judges, and defied them the more by refusing to behave as it was often said to be their duty to behave.
Yet before there was any formal recognition by the law of prevailing public opinion, many a wretched mother had to face a judge in a black cap, and be compelled to wait to see whether, in the end, after a long-drawn-out agony, she would receive a reprieve. It needed all the persuasiveness of the


distinguished father of a distinguished Member of this House—the late Mr. Arthur Henderson—to cause the first faltering steps to be taken to alter what was certainly then an appallingly cruel law, and it needed the medical authority of Lord Dawson of Penn before the law reached even its present state.
The present law undoubtedly reflects yesteryears' struggle between those who were still tenaciously holding on to the punitive attitude and those who wanted the law to be informed by increased medical understanding, and an understanding in particular, of the post-natal mental condition of the mother. The law today still absurdly enjoins on the prosecution that at one and the same time it must show that the wrong-doing was done wilfully and that the wrongdoer was not responsible because the balance of her mind was disturbed as a result of birth or as a result of lactation, and that she had not been fully recovered from those effects.
The law today is in such a position that, the prosecution having proved the tumult of mind, in defiance of every canon of criminal responsibility, it is still decreed that the sick woman is to be treated as though she had committed manslaughter. It may be that one day, in a more rational and compassionate society, we shall have family courts in which mothers in this tragic predicament will no longer be regarded as people to whom the stigma of criminality should be attracted, and in which these mothers will be able to be dealt with and helped without the need to place a stigma on them.
In the meantime, my Bill would make the offence triable as it is not now, summarily, before the magistrates. It would also lay down that infanticide would not be an offence to which could be attached a penalty of imprisonment.
As the law now stands, the mother cannot be dealt with summarily before the magistrates. It is mandatory that a case of infanticide is taken on indictment and, as a consequence, is usually dealt with before the assize judges. The procedure results in appalling strain to the mother at the very moment when she should be receiving the maximum support to cope with the grievous knowledge that, in her temporary insanity, she has slain her own child.
Sometimes the wretched woman, as a consequence of the present law, is brought before the magistrates two or three times for remand and for the taking of depositions. Sometimes, indeed, because the magistrates cannot deal with the matter with any finality, it means that she spends weeks inside prison waiting trial, albeit usually in a prison hospital. I therefore propose in my Bill that so that the woman should not have all this long strain of waiting for many weeks before being brought for trial, and then having to face all the pomp and paraphernalia of the assize court, it should be possible for the case to be disposed of speedily in the magistrates' court.
As the law stands now, the rite of the long-drawn-out agony having been endured, and the law satisfied that honour has been done to its majesty, it relents. In fact, to the credit of the judges, it seems that imprisonment is very rare. As far as I can see, no judge has imprisoned a woman, certainly since 1960, for this offence. These mothers have been put on probation, they have been dealt with by hospital orders, they have been given absolute or conditional discharges and, of course, all these ways of dealing with them would have been open to the magistrates if only they possessed the power to deal with cases of infanticide speedily in their own courts. This is what the Bill would seek to do.
No less distressing is the publicity surrounding the trials. Some of the macabre details are pedalled in a prurient Press in a way that adds to the damage which is already suffered, not only by the woman but also by the family. A woman who was in an acute state of depressive confusional insanity took a carving knife and cut off her baby's head, returned to sanity after surviving the present process of law and after psychiatric treatment, to discover that the terrible happening was known to all her neighbourhood. In fear that her children of school age would suffer, her husband was compelled to sell his business at a loss and move speedily to start life elsewhere in search of anonymity. I could catalogue many similar and other tragic cases.
Today, with our knowledge of mental illness, we do not expect to have retailed


the bizarre conduct of the sick in our mental hospitals. Justice does not require a gruesome incident in the life of a mentally ill mother should be blazoned abroad. My Bill would seek to limit the publication of such details as would identify the mother in the same way as cases in the juvenile courts are reported so that those before the court are not to be identified. The woman who, in her madness, has extinguished the life she has created needs pity and help, and her family needs privacy in their sorrow. It is now time that the law desisted from its hunger for punishment and proffered compassion to the distraught mother.
I hope that the House will be generous enough to give me leave to bring in the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Abse, Mr. A. Henderson, Mr. W. T. Williams, Mr. S. C. Silkin, Lady Megan Lloyd George, Mr. St. John-Stevas, Mr. Hooson, Mrs. Lena Jeger, Mrs. McKay, Dr. Summerskill, Dr. Miller, and Dr. David Kerr.

INFANTICIDE

Bill to amend the law relating to infanticide, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd July, and to be printed. [Bill 167.]

Orders of the Day — FINANCE (No. 2) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 22nd June].

[Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]

4.5 p.m.

The Chairman: Before I call the first new Clause I should like to thank hon. and right hon. Gentlemen for their unfailing courtesy during the long sittings on the Bill of which we now approach the later, I shall not say the last, stage, especially when I have been so unpopular as not to select Amendments or new Clauses which they would have liked the Committee to discuss.
I have a final suggestion to make. That is that we add to the new Clauses I have grouped around new Clause No. 19, new Clause No. 52—"Claimant depending on services of daughter"—if the Opposition have no objection. If the Opposition object, I shall withdraw that suggestion.

Mr. Edward Heath: I think that my hon. and right hon. Friends would have no objection at all, Dr. King. I presume that we would still maintain the right of having a Division?

The Chairman: Oh, yes, always with the right of a Division on new Clause No. 52 if need be. New Clause No. 52 is not quite closely related to the other group, but in my mind it is in some way connected.

The first new Clause I have selected is No. 8.

New Clause.—(EASTER OR OTHER SIMILAR OFFERINGS TO BE EXEMPT FROM INCOME TAX.)

Easter or other similar offerings made to clergymen or other ministers of religion shall not be regarded as income for any of the Income Tax Acts for any future year of assessment.—[Sir Cyril Black.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Cyril Black: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
It will be within the knowledge of hon. Members of the Committee that this new Clause deals with a matter which, on a number of occasions, has been debated


in this Committee and this House. The most recent occasion was in 1960. There has, therefore, been a fair interval of time and circumstances have somewhat changed since this matter was last debated. I make no apology for moving the Second Reading of this new Clause today because, although the matter with which it deals has often been discussed it will continue to be raised and discussed while the injustice with which it seeks to deal remains.
It may be that the drafting of my new Clause does not meet all the requirements of the Treasury and of parliamentary draftsmen. I would not be prepared to quarrel if that point were made against me. I am concerned that the Committee should have an opportunity of debating this matter and, if the principle I am asking the Committee to adopt can be conceded, I am very willing to leave it to the Government to use the services of their expert draftsmen in putting the Clause into a condition which is satisfactory to the Treasury.
It has been said in the past, and I wish to deal with this matter in my speech, as this is the only opportunity I shall have, that to make the concession which is sought would create many anomalies and open many floodgates. This I deny. I hope that I can satisfy the Committee that what we are dealing with here is a unique case, a case which stands apart from any other and that, therefore, to make this concession would not create embarrassment by setting up similar claims elsewhere.
The point has been made in reference to some of the new Clauses, moved unsuccessfully in the past, that they dealt only with the clergy of one church, the Church of England. That has been a valid criticism. I am certain that the Committee would wish, if the principle I am commending were accepted, that this concession should apply to the clergy of churches of all denominations. No one would desire today that any preferential treatment should be given to one Church or to the clergy of one Church. What we are concerned with is the general case of the whole ministry of the Christian Church and any concession which can be granted should be equally available to all churches and to the ministers of all Churches.
I have made it quite clear that while, of course, the new Clause would relate particularly to the Easter offering in the Church of England it would include other similar annual freewill offerings made for the benefit of the clergy in other denominations. It is very important that this point should be emphasised.
The position of clergy, priests and ministers of religion is unique. They are not in the same category as any other class of taxpayers. They are not, in the strict use of the word, employed, but are called to the holy duties which they undertake. They are not, in the ordinary sense of the term, paid for the duties that they render, but they are maintained in the services of their churches at what usually cannot be described as other than a minimum standard of living necessary to maintain them in a condition of efficiency to discharge the duties which they are called upon to perform.
I wonder how many of us and how many church attenders generally realise, when we make our often inadequate contribution to the Easter or similar offering, that, as the law stands at the moment, and as the practice is observed, the recipient is, in most cases at any rate, charged tax by the hard-hearted and grim-faced tax gatherer. This is a position which is probably not generally realised by those who make their contributions to the offerings.
The law on this matter, as far as I have been able to ascertain it, is at present full of injustices and inequalities. I am advised that, as matters stand at present, a vicar is, for tax purposes treated like a professional footballer. He would get a much better deal if he were treated as a professional cricketer, because a footballer's agreement with his club contains something about a benefit which he is to receive after so many years' satisfactory service, and, therefore, the inland Revenue treats the benefit as covered by contract and the amount received by the professional footballer is taxable in the hands of the player.
On the other hand, a cricketer has no such clause in his contract. Although a benefit is awarded by vote of the county committee, it can be withheld without doing violence to the terms of the contract, but in practice it seldom is withheld. The principle seems to be: no


contract, no tax. This results in the professional footballer paying tax on his benefit and the cricketer escaping such tax. If the vicar could be brought under the umbrella of the professional cricketer, he would be much better off than he is at the moment, because the treatment he at present receives is the same as that afforded to the professional footballer.
I understand that the reason for this is that the Treasury has ruled that the Easter offering to the vicar is contractual, because of a few lines in the Book of Common Prayer. These lines are usually in extremely small type and I doubt whether the majority of regular churchgoers have noticed the paragraph. The Book of Common Prayer says this:
And yearly at Easter every Parishioner shall reckon with the Parson, Vicar, or Curate, or his or their Deputy or Deputies; and pay to them or him all Ecclesiastical Duties, accustomably due, then and at that time to be paid.
On the strength of that insertion in the Book of Common Prayer—the insertion was at a time before Income Tax was imposed either on vicars or on the general body of citizens—vicars and clergy are liable for tax on the Easter offerings, for which they would not be liable but for the fact that this paragraph appears in the Prayer Book.
There are various ways, so I understand, by which a vicar who wished to do so could probably free himself from the burden of tax on the annual free will offering of his parishioners. For instance, a vicar could say, "This year I intend to forgo the Easter offering. No collection will be taken for me at Easter in church, but there will be a retiring collection at Christmas, for which there is no provision in the Prayer Book and no provision in my contract. The result will be that you can help me at Christmas in just the same way as you would help me at Easter under the usual procedure, but if the gift is made uncontractually at Christmas, instead of contractually at Easter, I shall not have to pay tax on the collection."

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Would that be tax evasion or tax avoidance?

4.15 p.m.

Sir C. Black: I should have thought that it was probably tax avoidance rather

than tax evasion. Again, it would be open to the vicar to announce on Easter Sunday, "There will be no Easter offering this year, but if, during the week you, my parishioners, or any of your friends, care to drop money anonymously through my letter box at the vicarage, I will be happy to receive in that form tangible evidences of your good will. This will not be part of my contract or the conditions of my employment, and there is at least a good chance that by that means I shall not have to pay tax on your generosity." Is it desirable that the vicar should be put in the position of having to resort to such devices to deal with a situation which ought to be dealt with by the decision of the House of Commons?
Money given by members of congregations to the Easter or other similar offering has already borne tax in the hands of the donors. The donors have discharged in full their liabilities to the tax collector. This can be fairly assumed, because otherwise they would not be in the congregation of a Christian church. Having discharged in full their liabilities to the tax collector, it is out of the net income left them after paying their taxes that, from the goodness of their heart, they express appreciation to their minister.
It may be said that, if the Clause were accepted, a large amount of tax would be lost by the Revenue. This most certainly is not so. In 1957, the then Financial Secretary, in reply to a Question, said that the cost of relieving the whole of the stipend of the clergy from Income Tax would be about £1 million a year. This is not a proposal to exempt the whole of the stipend of the clergy from Income Tax, but to exempt merely a relatively small sum which clergy receive annually out of the goodness of heart of their parishioners. What we are talking about now is only a small fraction of that sum of £1 million. It is probable that this concession would cost the Revenue not more than £100,000.
There is another reason why this matter should be considered again, because the facts are not as they were when the matter was last debated. In 1960, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, recognising the strength of feeling on this matter, made a small concession to the clergy in relation to Schedule A tax on houses occupied by ministers of religion.
That was at the time a special concession granted to ministers of religion against the general Schedule A practice, but, now Schedule A tax has been abolished, this has ceased to be a concession. Therefore, the clergy have lost a concession compared with other people which was granted to them in 1960.
One point which may be made in the debate is that the Churches themselves should face up to their duties in making more adequate provision for the remuneration of the clergy. That is a fair and justifiable point for hon. Members to make. If it should be that this debate leads all of us and Christian people generally to be more generous and sacrificial in support of the ministry the debate will have served a useful purpose whatever its outcome may be, but I submit that the Government cannot argue that because the clergy are sometimes underpaid there is no reason for making a tax concession which, on the merits of the case, I believe to be fully justified.
The State itself recognises that immunity from tax is justified in certain cases, such as that of a person who is in receipt of a disability pension from the State. Therefore, it cannot be said that if this concession is made we are breaching a universal principle and making a departure from a rule to which there are at present no exceptions. No one can deny that we live today in difficult and challenging times. Religion and morality are being both assailed and neglected and the spiritual standards and values which alone can make a people great are being increasingly thrust in the background. Our clergy of all denominations labour under great difficulties and manifold discouragements. Most of them give of their very best to the service of God, at great sacrifice and at the cost of much personal hardship which falls not only upon them but upon their families.
We have the opportunity, at a trivial cost to the Exchequer, to remedy a longstanding injustice and to bring a little encouragement to a body of men who would be reluctant themselves, no matter how great their need, to plead their own cause. The principle of the new Clause is one which I hope and believe will commend itself to all our hearts.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: It is usual when addressing the Committee to

declare any interest which one may have. I cannot, or course, declare a pecuniary interest in this matter, but it is right to say that I have a family interest in it in that I have two brothers-in-law who are parsons in the Church of England and my stepfather is also a parson. In their eyes I dare say that I am a black sheep. I wish to put the case for the new Clause and I shall address my remarks particularly to the matter as it affects parsons of the Church of England, because it is their case that I know best.
Basically, the problem resolves itself round the question whether Easter offerings are remuneration, or whether they are gifts. Although there is a mention in the rubric of the 1682 Prayer Book I have ben unable to find the derivation of the custom of giving an Easter offering or, indeed, a freewill offering. According to Chambers' Encyclopaedia, Easter offerings are customary sums which have been paid from time immemorial and which used to be recoverable as small tithes before justices of the peace. The Dictionary of the Christian Church defines a benefice and says that it
under canon law came to imply an ecclesiastical office which prescribed certain duties or conditions for the due discharge of which it awarded certain revenues.
These duties included showing due solicitude for the moral and spiritual welfare of the parishioners.
I firmly resist the temptation to go into the question of the stipends of clergy and ministers, but the first person whom individuals or families think of when they meet disaster is the local parson or minister. He is the man who looks after their spiritual and moral welfare, and in my submission Easter offerings are gifts which are in no sense a payment for services rendered. As such, they should not bear tax.
Payments of any sort demand a receipt. A parson or minister receiving Easter offerings or free will offerings via the plate in church cannot possibly know from whom the individual sums have come and, therefore, it is not possible to render a receipt other than gratitude for what has been given. I am certain that the majority of the laity if they knew of the tax position would undoubtedly think of the Easter offering as a gift. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) has stated,


the principle of double taxation is involved here and to most people in the United Kingdom that is positive anathema. The money which is put on the plate has already been taxed at the hands of the donor.
If we allow this state of affairs to continue we are perpetrating, with the connivance of the Exchequer, a confidence trick against certain minorities. Parsons and ministers are treated for National Insurance purposes as being self-employed. Under the Finance Bill, National Insurance contributions are no longer allowable for tax purposes and, therefore, another burden is thrust on the backs of the hard-working and excellent men of the ministry.
I hope that the Exchequer will stop being mealy-mouthed about this. No doubt the excuse will be made that the new Clause would be unfair to others. The Government have been asked to tax gambling. They say that it is too complicated to tax gambling winnings, but apparently it is easy enough to tax Easter offerings simply because parsons and ministers are honest and they declare them in their tax returns.
What would be the cost to the Exchequer if the Clause were accepted, as I hope it will be? I am sorry that I have only been able to get figures applicable to the Church of England. In December, 1964, 10,086 incumbents received Easter offerings amounting to £427,911, an average of £43 per incumbency, or 3·6 per cent. of the gross benefice income. Taking those payments at the standard rate of Income Tax, assuming that Easter offerings are taxed as earned income, the total cost to the Exchequer of accepting the new Clause would be £138,900 in the current year. If we as a nation can afford to give £3½ million to keep the United Nations on its feet, surely we can afford this paltry sum to help the most deserving people who look after our spiritual welfare.
I trust that the Government will see the injustice which is being perpetrated by the taxation of Easter offerings, and, in the name of the House of Commons and the country, I strongly urge them to accept the new Clause.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Paul Dean: I emphasise what, to my mind, is the overriding argument in favour of the new Clause, endorsing what my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) said in reminding us that there is a very special or, indeed, unique relationship between a clergyman, whatever his denomination, and his flock.
To me, it causes great offence that the Exchequer should interfere in this relationship. Those of us who make offerings at Easter or on similar occasions do so out of love and gratitude to God's special representative in our midst, and I regard it as quite wrong that, in those circumstances, the State should demand its pound of flesh out of such offerings.

Mr. Michael Alison: My hon. Friends have put forward some formidable arguments, and, of course, some of them have been heard before in this Committee. Ever since 1908, when the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords rejected the argument that Easter offerings should be exempt from tax, Governments of every description have insisted on maintaining the rule. In the context of the present Finance Bill, however, there are some new factors to be considered, and I hope that the Minister will regard this question very much in the light of the Bill now before us.
First, there is the simple practical matter of expediency inasmuch as the Chancellor will, within a comparatively short time, find himself in possession of another £12 million as a result of the raising of a new tax. In that light, the net loss to the Exchequer by accepting this new Clause is seen to be very small indeed.
Secondly, in their new arrangements for taxation under the Bill, the Government have provided for certain exemptions and, in doing so, they have exposed two principles which are closely relevant to the case we are now considering. First, in relation to donors of gifts bestowed in various ways, the principle has been established that, when assets of small value, up to £100, are disposed of by gift, the disposal does not constitute a disposal giving rise to liability to Capital Gains Tax.
The reason for this concession is obvious. The practice of making small


gifts is universal, desirable, and should not be penalised by the State. If the disposal of assets by way of small gifts is exempted on the ground that the spirit of generosity actuates the great bulk of human beings and should not be penalised, it is quite intolerable that Easter offerings should remain subject to double taxation, subject to Income Tax in the first place in the hand of the giver and subject to Income Tax again in the hand of the recipient.
I realise that gifts to the clergy are not made in terms of assets and the parallel is not direct, but the analogy is clear. The Government must ensure that the principle of lifting the penalty on small gifts is not contradicted by the continuance of double taxation of gifts made to the clergy.
The second principle is exposed by the way in which the Finance Bill deliberately and specifically treats those who own or receive assets which they dispose of. In the main part of the Bill relating to the Capital Gains Tax, the principle is established that disposals of tangible moveable assets, that is, chattels, of value below £1,000 shall not be susceptible to the Capital Gains Tax. It is interesting to reflect on the categories of person having the benefit of this exemption. They do not include the clergy, alas, but they include such people as farmers and breeders of animals who, quite properly under the Bill, can regularly, year by year, dispose, for instance, of a racehorse, a prize pig or other animal—of assets—below the value of £1,000 on which they can make an untaxed gain. In this way, such people can secure a regular yearly tax-free income. The Bill explicitly provides for such exemptions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) reminded us that, for the purposes of National Insurance, the clergy are treated as self-employed. I hesitate to call them sole traders, but there is a sense in which they can be regarded as sole traders. Like farmers and other traders, they should not be denied the benefit from realising an asset which is peculiarly theirs, the asset created by the use of their energies, abilities and professional qualities.
Why should the farmer be able, year by year, to dispose of an animal and realise a capital gain which is specifi-

cally exempted from tax under the perfectly human and reasonable approach which the Government have adopted in drafting their Bill while another kind of sole trader, the self-employed parson, who derives his yearly benefit very much as the result of the qualities which are peculiarly his, continues to be taxed?
We can never look at the clergy's stipend in quite the same way again after the new principles introduced in this Finance Bill.

Mr. John Cordle: My hon. Friends have advanced some very powerful arguments. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) in particular set the whole matter out with great accuracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) thought that it was not wise to comment on the salaries earned by clergy within the Church of England. The new Clause has been so worded as to include the other denominations and the Nonconformists.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon has said, it will no doubt be a surprise to the nation to realise that Easter offerings for the clergy are subjected to tax. Perhaps the nation should awaken to the fact that clergy are seriously underpaid and that the average salary or stipend received by the clergy in most dioceses—I will not argue with my hon. Friend the Member for Banff about the figure of 14,000 or 15,000 clergy—is no more than £800 or £900 per annum. How, on this figure, they can run large rectories and be expected to undertake the administration of the parish is too much for considered thought.
I hope that the Treasury will consider this matter carefully. It will indeed be a happy day for the clergy if we in the House of Commons can acquit ourselves and give them this small token of our appreciation and affection for the work they do for God and for us.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I am very much encouraged by the fact that it is the Minister without Portfolio who is to reply to the debate on the new Clause. During the years that I have had the honour of sitting in the House of Commons, in common with many of my colleagues, I have learnt to admire the hon. Gentleman's abiding interest in


the work of the Christian Church and, in particular, of the Anglican Church. On the other hand, I am disturbed that on this occasion the hon. Gentleman is appearing on the Treasury Bench. I only hope that his deep sympathy will triumph over his association with the Treasury. [An HON. MEMBER: "Some hope."] I am certainly hoping.
In moving the new Clause, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) covered the ground fairly and moderately. My only disagreement with him is that he described the existing situation as a deep injustice, as though it had been perpetrated by somebody. I do not think that it came into existence in that way. It came into existence almost by accident. As we have been reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), it was only as a result of an appeal decision in 1908 that it was ruled that this kind of gift should be subject to Income Tax.
In the years which immediately followed, the burden was not, perhaps, as great. In those days, Income Tax was a much smaller item. The impact of Income Tax at a low rate was not as serious a matter. Indeed, the injustice which my hon. Friend has described has partially resulted from the gradual and progressive increase in the impact of Income Tax.
There were anomalies in the proposals that were made on similar lines in former years, the chief of them being that the proposal was, in most cases, limited merely to clergy of the Anglican Church. My hon. Friend has now presented a new Clause which would include all ministers of religion. To that extent, it has a better chance of commending itself to the Government.
This has not been a Finance Bill which has been noteworthy for its tax concessions. Rather has it been noteworthy for a substantial increase in taxation. Here, however, the Government have an opportunity, at very small cost to themselves—at an almost insignificant cost—of making a valuable concession to those who would benefit by it. Above all, it is a concession that would have a widespread appeal. This argument must be extremely persuasive with the Minister.
Account should also be taken of a matter which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) and by others who have spoken. I refer to the fact that it seems undesirable that the Treasury should come between the donor and the beneficiary in this way. A clergyman or minister has no right to the amount of such gifts. The gifts may be relatively small on a certain day or they may be relatively large. A clergyman has no right to them in that sense. They are given voluntarily in the wide sense. As we have been reminded, they contain an undesirable element of double taxation while Income Tax applies to them.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: I support the new Clause, although I must declare an interest—in name only. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has remarked upon his membership of the House of Commons extending over a number of years. I ask this question not to make political capital, but purely to improve my knowledge of political history. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will tell us why action on the lines which he is advocating was not taken in previous years, in view of the strength of the case which has been put forward.

Mr. Gower: I, like the hon. Member, very much regret that such action was not taken in former years. One reason, I suggest, is that in former years Ministers on the Tresaury Bench have been able to say that similar new Clauses were anomalous because they referred for the most part only to Anglican clergy and would confer no similar benefit upon ministers, for example, of the Established Church of Scotland or of the Free Churches. That anomaly does not now apply.
I regret, as does the hon. Member, that this change was not made in the past. That, however, is not a sound reason for not doing something today. The case for this reform has been progressively established. I very much hope that the Minister will give an encouraging reply. It is certainly undesirable that ministers of religion should resort to the kind of subterfuge, innocent though it may be, described by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon.
As my hon. Friend said, this has been a time when those who advocate the maintenance of spiritual and moral values have been swimming against the tide. They have had a hard battle. The whole impact of our contemporary civilisation seems, perhaps, to be against them in those battles. It would be a bad thing for this Parliament, in what is still avowedly a Christian country, not to take this step. Let us set an example to the country at this time when there is a desperate need for such an example. Although the method proposed is modest and the cost insignificant, I implore the Minister to do it.

The Minister without Portfolio (Sir Eric Fletcher): Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to intervene at this stage and indicate my reaction to the speeches which have been made in support of the Clause. I need hardly say at the outset that perhaps no one could be more sympathetic than I am in my approach to this subject, which is of perennial interest.
4.45 p.m.
I recall having taken part in a number of previous debates on the subject and recently I took the opportunity of rereading some of those debates. In one form or another, this cause was argued with even greater eloquence on earlier occasions, not least of all by yourself, Dr. King, in a number of notable speeches.

The Chairman: Order. It is not in order to pray in aid the Chair for or against any Question which is before the Committee.

Sir Eric Fletcher: I was not craving your aid, Dr. King. I was merely reminding myself of some of the eloquence which we have enjoyed from you on previous occasions, but of which, on this occasion, we are deprived.
Incidentally, I notice that on the first occasion when I heard this matter debated, in 1946, when Mr. Hugh Dalton was Chancellor of the Exchequer and when the Clause was in somewhat more limited terms and was confined to providing freedom from taxation of Easter offerings up to a maximum of £50, there was a Division in which I voted against the then Labour Government and in support of the Clause. That is not an encouragement to any of my hon. Friends

to vote against the present Government in somewhat different circumstances.
Propositions have been repeated this afternoon with which we all agree. First, we all agree that many clergy are very much underpaid. It is a near disgrace that so many members of the ministry in all denominations live with their families in very straitened circumstances. They are probably the most impoverished section of the community. They have not had the opportunity to raise their standard of living in this affluent society to anything like the same extent as most other sections of the community. Surely we all agree that they are a body of devoted and dedicated men rendering conspicuous service to the moral and spiritual welfare of the nation.
I could add other arguments, which have not been mentioned this afternoon, why they are deserving of any help which we can possibly give them. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) referred to various evasive devices which can he adopted, for example, by encouraging gifts of money from parishioners at Christmas or some other period of the year other than Easter. But we have to recognise that ministers of religion of all denominations are particularly scrupulous in their financial dealings and would not stoop to some devices, which may or may not be on the borderline of the law, for reducing their Income Tax liability.
Therefore, on that ground alone I would have thought that we had a duty to see whether there was anything that we could do to alleviate the conditions in which they have to work and live and do such valuable work. As you will know, Dr. King, this is a problem with which every Chancellor of the Exchequer whom I can remember has had to grapple. Sympathy about this problem has been expressed by among others, Mr. Dalton, Sir Stafford Cripps, Mr. Harold Macmillan, the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft), the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) and Lord Amory, and I have no doubt—although I am not sure whether he has intervened in any of these debates—that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) had to consider this matter during his term of office at the Treasury. I, too,


have had to consider whether there is any principle which requires us to adhere to what is and has been the law for some time and to see whether there is any step which we can take.
I should observe that whatever the law may be and whatever anomaly a change in the law might introduce, none of us in this Committee would wish to be hidebound by Treasury doctrine if there were a widespread popular demand throughout the country for a change of the law in this respect, or if the leaders of the three political parties were united in recommending a change in the law, or if there were anything like near unanimity on this subject in the Committee.
Unfortunately, that is not the case and it is, therefore, worth while to remind the Committee of what has been said on this subject in the opposite sense by two respected and distinguished members of the Committee. I will choose two quotations from either side of the Committee. In 1960, speaking of payments to the clergy, offertories, freewill offerings to the clergy, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said:
It seems clear to me that these payments are indisputably and unavoidably of the nature of income, and most of the arguments which have been used in favour of this Clause only strengthens the view that these payments are income. Neither their voluntary origin, nor the low pay of the recipients, nor the nature of the occasion on which the payments are made, nor any"—

Hon. Members: He was a Treasury Minister.

Sir Eric Fletcher: At that time the right hon. Gentleman was not a Treasury Minister, but was speaking as a private Member of Parliament. I will continue the quotation:
Neither the voluntary origin, nor the low pay of the recipients nor the nature of the occasion on which the payments are made, nor any of the circumstances, alters the underlying fact that these payments are part of the income of the recipients, and would be treated as income were they similarly given to other persons.
In those circumstances, I cannot feel that it would be desired by those whom we are trying to help in this way that discrimination should be made …in their favour …".
The other quotation is from my right hon. Friend the present Chief Secretary, who was also speaking as a private Mem-

ber of Parliament and who pointed out that he approached the matter with great sympathy as the son of a rabbi, having been brought up in very modest circumstances. He said:
This is a matter of conscience. … As for the conscience of the giver, my conscience will not be mollified because a body of important persons who are doing a unique service to this country, which needs to be done now more than ever, are to be helped in this way and because my responsibility as a giver and a provider of adequate living remuneration for them is to be fobbed off on to the Treasury. If we believe that this should be done, we should do it ourselves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1960; Vol. 625, c. 582–4.]
I do not regard either of those quotations as conclusive, of course, but they indicate that there is not unanimity on this subject.

Mr. John M. Temple (City of Chester): I know that with his natural modesty the hon. Gentleman would not wish to quote from a speech of his own, so may I remind him of a quotation of his in Committee on the Finance Bill when, speaking on this subject, he said:
We have heard it said that there are administrative reasons which make such a concession difficult, that it might open the door to other concessions.
I do not believe that.

Sir Eric Fletcher: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had gone on to read something else I said and which, I am bound to confess, modesty prevented me from saying. I then added:
It is felt to be almost indecent and repulsive that the more generous people are to their pastors at Easter time the more goes into the Chancellor's pocket."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1957; Vol. 572, c. 839.]
I do not resile in any way from what I said at that time. The hon. Gentleman has been good enough to refer to what I said about the administrative reasons.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: We are not quite sure yet how the hon. Gentleman will come down on this question. His words so far have given us hope and have then dashed us down. But the quotations he has given are from the past and I do not think that he can deny that thus far in the debate there has been unanimity in support of the Clause and that he has to go to the past to destroy that unanimity.

5.0 p.m.

Sir Eric Fletcher: We have not yet come to the end of the debate. I shall wait with interest what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Handsworth has to say about it.
I do not regard, in this or any other context, the failure of the Tory Government for 13 years to deal with this subject as being in itself an excuse for our not dealing with it if we thought it were the right and proper thing to do. I am, therefore, anxious to hear today what hon. Gentlemen opposite have to say now that there are a number of ex-Chancellors here with experience at the Treasury.
I would like to hear whether they, with their experience, are proposing to support the Motion with their vote in the Division Lobby, because I think that would be a very important factor. They are on record as to what they have said in the past. If they take the view that circumstances have changed today, and take the responsibility of wishing to support this in the Division, that, obviously, would be a factor of considerable influence with my right hon. Friends and I shall wait to hear what is to be said today.

Sir Edward Boyle: The right hon. Gentleman will certainly have our views in due course. The right hon. Gentleman is now a member of the Government and he is a Minister advising this Committee. I think that we are entitled to hear from him what he thinks of the quotations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and the present Chief Secretary which he has read out. Is he advising this Committee simply on the basis that the views of the Committee have not been unanimous on this subject? Is he merely making use of these quotations to that purpose, or does he mean more? I think that before the right hon. Gentleman hears my views we are entitled to know what is the advice the Government are to give about voting on this Clause.

Sir Eric Fletcher: I was coming to that. Obviously, I was not proposing to ignore it. It is my duty to remind the Committee, before it comes to a conclusion on this matter, of the objections that have been made by Labour and

Conservative Chancellors during past years. The Committee has to weigh in the balance the arguments that have been advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite and these views, which are the Treasury's views that have been expressed time and again. They are slightly different on this occasion because the form of this new Clause differs, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon will appreciate, and as I think he observed, from terms of somewhat similar Clauses that have been introduced in the past, limited to the case of Easter offerings and limited sometimes to a particular pecuniary amount and I think sometimes not including all Christian demoninations.
The test must be whether these payments made to clergy of any denomination, whether at Easter or any other time are made to them by virtue of their office. If they are, then they are different from the kind of gifts made to personal friends and they come within the ordinary code of Income Tax or emoluments, fees derived from the holding of an office.
The next point to be considered is this. Suppose it were the fact that the Committee decided to exempt all clergymen from tax on voluntary offerings. It would then be necessary to see whether justice could be done to both those clergymen of the Church of England who receive Easter offerings by tradition going back for many years, as well as to the ministers of the Free Churches who are remunerated in a different way.
The system in Scotland, in the Methodist Church and in other denominations is that collections are made and they very often go into a central fund out of which the expenses of the church are paid, including the maintenance of the church, the remuneration of the ministers and the sundry expenses relating to the running of the organisation. If justice were to be done it would be necessary to allocate a part of those voluntary contributions made week by week to a central fund to see how much of this was referable to the salaries that eventually found their way into the hands of the ministers.
There is a further point.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford) rose—

Sir Eric Fletcher: Experience shows interruptions are not really helpful if they merely anticipate points which one intends to deal with.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon and others have indicated that the position is different today from what it was in the past and the hon. Member for Wimbledon referred specifically to the fact that whereas formerly clergymen had the benefit of being exempt from Schedule A contributions, since Schedule A has been abolished they can no longer claim to have that benefit.
That is not the end of the matter. As a result of some of these earlier debates on this subject, I think it was Lord Amory who introduced the provision in Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1961, which first gave all full-time ministers of religion, irrespective of their denominations freedom of Income Tax under Schedule A in respect of their official residences.
I appreciate it can be said that since Schedule A has been abolished that is no longer a concession available to them. That was not the only concession. In 1963, beneficial occupiers other than owner-occupiers remained liable to tax on the value of the house that they occupied. Ministers of religion are not owner-occupiers. They do not own the vicarage, the manse or the other house in which they live. In the ordinary case they would, therefore, have been liable to tax on the value of such a house, but it was expressly provided, as a result of a debate somewhat like this, by paragraph 19 of the 12th Schedule of the Finance Act 1963 that the parsonage house or any official residence provided for a full time minister of religion shall be treated as
occupied otherwise than by the holder of the office".
If it were not for that provision a minister of religion would be liable to tax in respect of the value of the house he occupies. There is a further aspect of the matter which I think should be borne in mind by the Committee. As everybody knows the system is growing of making payments to charity by covenant. There is also an increasing tendency, certainly in the Church of England, and I think in other churches, to encourage voluntary payment to

church organisations, not so much by collections on Sundays and other days but by free will offerings during the year of stated promised moneys. There is also the growing practice of encouraging parishioners and members of other congregations to make their contributions to the maintenance of the church of their allegiance and, therefore, to the support of the minister who administers to them by freewill offerings of that kind.
To the extent to which they are being paid by way of covenant, which is becoming increasingly common, the donors and the recipients derive the full benefit available from the Exchequer to those who enter into covenants, which enables payment to be made and tax to be recovered and therefore, enables people to give more generously for religious purposes than perhaps they would otherwise do.

Sir C. Black: Surely the point which the hon. Gentleman has made operates in exactly the opposite sense to his argument. Before the Budget, if people entered into a seven-year covenant, as many do, with their vicar personally to make a payment, they were entitled to tax deduction and they had relief from Surtax in the case of a covenant to an individual. In this Budget the Government have taken away the Surtax concession which formerly existed and have made it much less likely that vicars will be in receipt of that kind of assistance.

Sir Eric Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman has not appreciated what I was trying to say. It is perfectly right that Surtax relief under a covenant to individuals is no longer available. But will the hon. Gentleman apply his mind to this. The Income Tax relief on a covenant for charitable purposes is still available. In so far as there is a payment under a covenant to a religious charity, even though part of the funds of that charity is used for the payment of the stipend of the vicar or minister of religion, the Income Tax relief is still available.
In the case of the Established Church of Scotland, and I think the Methodist Church and others, where the ministers of religion are remunerated from the central fund, in so far as people choose to make their contributions to those religious charities by covenant, the fact


that a substantial part of the covenant goes to remunerate ministers of religion does not deprive them of the benefit of Income Tax relief.
I do not suggest that this should be encouraged to any great extent, but in so far as one is seeking to find means whereby, as hon. Members have advocated, the Treasury can assist in the voluntary efforts of people of good will and religious feeling to support their churches, it is important to bear this in mind as a very substantial contribution which the Treasury makes.
There was a time earlier in our history when part of one's income was made available, with the apparatus of the State, to the Church. That is no longer the case. Those who wish to make religious contributions are free to do so. It may well be that in so far as some of the clergy are inadequately remunerated it is the fault of the laity which does not give sufficiently generously and has not realized the additional responsibilities and expenses falling on ministers of religion. I hope that, if it has done nothing else, the debate has made some of us more aware of our responsibilities in that direction.
5.15 p.m.
I conclude by adopting the words uttered by Lord Amory when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 6th July, 1960, in answering a debate of this kind:
I have made up my mind that I will try to carry my responsibilities a little more seriously in this respect as a humble member of the Church of England than I have done hitherto."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1960; Vol. 626, c. 489.]

Sir C. Black: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that one of the difficulties which the Government saw in making this concession was the absence of agreement, and I think that he suggested that the situation might be different if the leaders of the three political parties in the House of Commons were in agreement with this proposal. If between now and Report I can obtain such agreement, may I take it that he will recommend hon. Members to accept a new Clause such as this?

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) for proposing his new Clause to exempt from tax Easter offerings and other offerings of

thanks to ministers of religion. He made an exceptionally good case for it, by far the best that I have heard in the Committee. I cannot say that I am terribly impressed with the reply of the Minister without Portfolio. Some of us have discussed the new Clause, and I have supported similar proposals on innumerable occasions. I have heard many arguments for them, good, bad and indifferent. I am sorry to say that I felt that the longer the Minister's speech lasted the worse his argument became, otherwise I leave classification to hon. Members' own judgment.
If back-bench Members want something, there are all sorts of Treasury briefs and arguments about why they cannot have it. If the Customs and Excise or the Inland Revenue want something, the average Chancellor of the Exchequer has a great deal of difficulty in resisting the pressure. If the Government want something strongly enough and it is Cabinet policy to get it, there are always arguments adduced by the Inland Revenue or the Customs and Excise, or whoever is concerned, as to why it is possible to accede to it when over the last 20 years it was impossible to do so. I have seen this time and again.
I am sure the Minister cannot honestly believe that there is not an element of consent in the country for this unique case. No doubt he has spoken from a Treasury brief to a great extent, but I am sure that he is sincere in his personal views about the desirability of meeting this case. Obviously, sitting on the Treasury bench, he is in a difficulty, but he cannot seriously believe that there is not a wide measure of consent in the country to meet the case which my hon. Friends have made for the new Clause, which has been made many times before. The fact that it has not been accepted in the past is not a very good argument. Variations on the new Clause have been put forward before. Certainly there has never been a new Clause which went as far as this one to meet the many difficulties in this matter.
It might still be argued that it would not be right to accept the new Clause, and that to do so would open the door to exempting other matters. The question is: does the country think that ministers of religion should have this form of gift? One can argue about whether it is income until the cows come home. No


doubt it is income in the sense that a self-propelling advertising pencil given to me at an exhibition is income. The point is that the person who gives this type of contribution to a clergyman is endeavouring to make a personal gift out of appreciation for the innumerable services which he gives which are far beyond what any ordinary duty would require in the average walk of life. He feels distinctly hurt that, one after another, Governments—and I have criticised all Governments about this matter—have failed to appreciate that here is an instance in which there is an element of consent and desire in the country to recognise the services rendered by ministers.
This is one occasion when the Inland Revenue should be overruled, as indeed it is often overruled. What a bad time it has had on this Bill up to now. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon has met nearly all the arguments which have been adduced before. What he said about the contractual argument was very reasonable and shows just how thin that argument is.
Most of the Minister's arguments were Aunt Sallies dug up from old speeches in order to be knocked down. They did not meet the wish of the Committee as expressed today. Least of all did they meet that element of consent in the country which would allow the Government to overrule the red tape and other peculiarities of the Inland Revenue. I have seen the Inland Revenue overruled time and again. When we in this Committee have sought concessions we have often been told that they were quite impossible, only to find that the Government have eventually taken a certain decision with the result that the rules have been swept away. The whole of the case has then collapsed like a pack of cards. It is time that it collapsed today.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: Most of us who listened to the Minister without Portfolio could not but feel some sympathy for him. We remember the eloquence with which he supported many of us on both sides of the Committee in former years when this matter was discussed in a slightly different form. He is now in a difficult position. He is

not at his happiest in defending a case which, I think, he does not believe in. It would have been better to have allowed one of his right hon. or hon. Friends to do the job. There is no doubt in our minds, recalling previous debates, as to where his sympathy lies.
I am not very impressed with the purely technical argument as to whether the Easter offering or voluntary gifts at any other time of the year by parishioners to their clergymen are or are not income. That is hair splitting. It is not the argument that the Treasury has to meet. The argument for exempting the Easter offering or any other voluntary gifts is not solely based on the fact that the clergy as a whole are grossly underpaid or that, as a body, they have felt the draught perhaps more than any other body in the last 20 years. Neither is the argument based on the fact that a great many clergymen, certainly in country districts, are living in huge Victorian vicarages with acres of ground unkempt.
All these are, of course, arguments in favour of making this concession. But they could be met by the counter argument that it is for the Church and the laity to rearrange the financial situation of the clergy, who deserve to be better paid and looked after, and not for the Treasury to do so. I concede that point but it is not the real argument. Here I declare an interest. It is not, of course, financial. I have for many years been a rector's warden and I know something of the problem of collecting the Easter offering and of what one does with it. It is a fact that the more money put into the plate on Easter Sunday the less the incumbent gets. This is where the ridiculous anomaly arises.
There is no compulsion about this. Although it is a convention—and properly so—that the Easter offering is given to the incumbent annually there is no compulsion about it. It is within the discretion of the church wardens to do what they like with the Easter offering, although, in 99 cases out of 100, quite properly they give it to the incumbent.
I beg the Treasury to understand the absurd situation we are in. Lord Amory, as Chancellor, gave a concession on Schedule A on parsons' houses, but that concession no longer has any special value


to the clergy because no one now pays any Schedule A. In trade union terms, the clergy have lost a differential and there is no one apart from us to talk for them.
The hon. Gentleman's argument that there ought to be agreement between the leaders of all three parties on what to do about the Easter offering is not very strong. Have he or any of his colleagues since this new Clause was put down consulted the leaders of any of the Churches? The argument that we cannot accept the new Clause because there is not a unanimous view amongst the leaders of the three parties in this Committee is the most extraordinarily weak argument I have ever heard.
If people of any parish like to give their parson a turkey for Christmas the value of the turkey is not assessed for tax. If they like to collect enough money to give him so that with it he can buy a turkey for Christmas, that money is not assessable for tax. If they like to combine and pay half the annual cost of running his motor car, that money is not subject to tax. If they like to combine together in a different way in order to pay for a holiday for the clergyman and his family every year or every other year, that money is not subject to tax.
Yet every time any parishioner, as a gesture of good will for all that the parson may have done for him, puts £1 or 10s. or half a crown on the plate on Easter Sunday, it is not only subject to tax for the incumbent, but has, indeed, already borne tax by the person making the gift.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Surely if the parishioner chose to give the clergyman an Easter egg with money inside instead of chocolate it would not be taxed.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: The value of the Easter offering is in most cases almost incalculable. There may be a few large parishes in big cities where one can ascertain with reasonable certainty what the value might be but in most parishes it is impossible to calculate as between one year and another. Populations come and go. They change enormously. How much money is put into the plate on Easter Sunday may well depend on

whether Easter is early or late in the year, whether the day is wet or fine or on whether the parish is near a holiday resort, in which case many holiday makers may go to church and, therefore, the Easter offering might increase. If the parish is not near a holiday resort or the weather is bad then the sum received will be greatly decreased.
These things are incalculable. It cannot be seriously argued that when an Easter offering varies, as it often does, by as much as 50 per cent. as between one year and another, it is technically income which should bear tax.
The Government have quite rightly made a number of concessions in the Bill, including a number of exemptions. Amongst the exemptions are gains acquired by gambling. These are exempted from Capital Gains Tax. I do not complain of this but it is a curious state of affairs under a Labour Government, in view of some of the things they said not so long ago, that any amount of money that one can make at gambling goes tax free while 5s. put into the plate on Easter Sunday as a small token in regard for services rendered should be subject to tax.

5.30 p.m.

Sir E. Boyle: In view of his speeches in the past on this subject, I appreciate that this afternoon the Minister without Portfolio felt some slight embarrassment in taking part in this discussion. I think he delivered a rather curious speech, because he had a good deal to say about the views of the Opposition Front Bench, and I shall be clear in my reply what these are. The hon. Gentleman had some exhortations to make at the end of his speech about Christians performing their proper duties and contributing voluntarily to clerical stipends, but I do not think he gave the Committee very clear guidance on how to vote on the new Clause.
It seems to me that this is a subject on which the Government of the day, whoever they may be, must give a lead. In 1960, when my right hon. Friends the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) and Lord Amery, as he now is, replied to a debate on this subject, they did—I agree amidst a certain amount of dissent—give a clear lead on how they thought the Committee
should vote. I shall try to tell the Committee clearly what I think about this and how we ought to proceed on this question, although it must ultimately be for the Government to advise us.
We have had a number of debates on this subject since the war. I have been a member only since 1950, but I can recall the debates on this subject in 1957 and the debate in 1960 from which the Minister quoted. In 1961 I think many hon. Members rather hoped that we had laid the matter to rest with the quite important concession which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) made about parsonage houses. He brought in a Clause to provide that where any minister of religion, by virtue of his office, lived in a house which belonged to him as incumbent, or was owned by his church, he should be treated for tax purposes as though he was a representative occupier and, therefore, not liable for Schedule A. It is worth remembering that not only was that at the time thought to be a valuable concession to the clergy, but it was a concession which had been strongly urged on the Chancellor by the Churches' Main Committee. It was one for which the Churches had asked.
I was a little concerned at the way in which many hon. Members this afternoon expressed the view that the value of what my right hon. and learned Friend did had been completely nullified by the abolition of Schedule A. It may be, as has been said, that the clergy has lost a differential, but surely it is odd that we should take that line so strongly in a debate about the clergy which is perhaps hardly in accord with the tough parable about labourers in the vineyard. The fact that Schedule A has been abolished for others does not alter the fact that the clergy are in a more favourable position than they were before the 1961 Budget in this regard.
We are discussing a new Clause, which was moved with his customary clarity and sincerity by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), which says:
Easter or other similar offerings made to clergymen or other ministers of religion shall not be regarded as income for any of the Income Tax Acts for any future year of assessment.

It is fair to say that this new Clause is not very different from the one which we debated in 1960, which referred to the earnings of clergy and ministers of religion of all denominations so far as they were derived from the voluntary offerings of their congregations.
I have something else to say to the Committee, but for myself I should feel unable to vote for the new Clause, for two reasons. The first is the reason, which the Minister without Portfolio quoted, given in 1960 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I shall not read it again, but I think that that statement by my right hon. Friend was characteristically clear-cut and definite. It was made when my right hon. Friend was a private Member, and, incidentally,—and I hope that I shall not be out of order in mentioning this—when he was chairman of the finance committee of my party and was playing an active part in our Finance Bill debates.
There is another reason, which was also mentioned in that debate, by Lord Amery, and which seems relevant to this new Clause. However keen we may be to do something for the clergy, I believe that a new Clause of this kind will not work out in an altogether equitable way between one clergyman and another. This is not just a denominational matter. I do not believe that it will work out equitably, for the reasons which Lord Amery then gave, and perhaps I might quote a short passage from his speech because I think that it is relevant to the new Clause.
He pointed out, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, that on a number of occasions it had been held that voluntary offerings of all kinds were income, and he then said:
Coming to ministers of religion, nearly all clergymen obtain part of their income in the form of voluntary offerings. I understand that many ministers of the free churches receive most of their income, in some cases all their income, in that form. In many cases the voluntary offerings are not made direct to the clergyman in the parish but are made to the central fund, and then payments are made out from that to clergymen whose stipends particularly need supplementing. Therefore, voluntary offerings of this kind are a more complicated matter than appears at first sight.


If all voluntary offerings were exempted, some very strange anomalies would arise in the treatment. A clergyman whose income was £800 a year, largely composed of voluntary offerings, would pay very little tax indeed, whereas a clergyman whose stipend of £800 was paid otherwise than by voluntary offerings might pay a substantial sum in tax."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1960; Vol. 625, c. 585.]
My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wimbledon this afternoon rightly said that he was keen to produce a new Clause which was, as it were, equally fair as between denominations and was not biased in favour of one denomination or another, and that was why he referred to "Easter or other similar offerings". But it seems that the words, "other similar offerings" are rather wide in their incidence, and therefore there is the difficulty, which Lord Amory mentioned in 1960, which arises as soon as one starts bringing into the discussion a large band of voluntary offerings made by parishioners and others who wish to reward their clergy.

Sir C. Black: I think I made it clear at the outset that the new Clause was drafted by me with the aid of some of the precedents. I am neither a lawyer, nor a Parliamentary draftsman, and I made it clear that I thought the Clause might need to be altered substantially to give effect to what we had in mind. I think that my right hon. Friend is fair in making the point that he did, but I do not think that it destroys the principle that we are trying to establish.

Sir E. Boyle: I am glad my hon. Friend realises that I am trying to be fair about this. I am merely pointing out a real difficulty which I think faces almost any new Clause of the sort that we have had at intervals on this subject in this Committee. If one tries to bring in a wide band of voluntary offerings, one gets the difficulty to which Lord Amory referred. It is a very real difficulty, and it explains why, in 1960, Lord Amory expressed his desire to explore other possibilities; and it was that desire which led to the concession which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral made in 1961.

Mr. Gower: Even though the new Clause has been fairly loosely drawn, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has taken account of the fact that the

term "Easter offering" is clearly defined and has a definite and specific meaning? The expressions "other similar offerings" is very loose, but under the well-established principle of ejusdem generis they are analogous to an Easter offering in another kind of church.

Sir E. Boyle: I ask my hon. Friend to look at the quotation from Lord Amory's speech, because I think that this is a more difficult matter than he supposes.
Having explained why I feel unable to support the new Clause, I should like to put two final points to the Committee. There are only two ways in which to proceed. The first is to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is made fully aware of the strong views which have been expressed this afternoon and to express our hope that before the next Finance Bill it will be possible for him to have discussions with the Churches' Main Committee to see whether there is some possibility of giving assistance here, like the possibility which opened itself up in 1961.
Incidentally—I do not say this dogmatically; if my recollection is at fault, I am sorry—I have always understood that the Churches' Main Committee was not particularly strongly in favour of the new Clause, and much preferred the suggestion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible for the Chancellor to have further discussions with that body. If there is no new proposal of that kind I say that there is only one thing that we can do about this, if we and the Government decide that something should be done. I would much rather give a straight tax relief to the clergy—all above board—than attempt to put through a new Clause on these lines, which I do not believe will be satisfactory. I can see objections to it.
I am not advocating this course, but I say that if the House and the Government decide that something further should be done for the clergy in the way of tax relief, and if nothing presents itself which is analogous to what we did in 1961, I would rather consider a straight tax allowance than a special allowance which might well work out unfairly as between one clergyman and another.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I shall detain the Committee only for a few moments. I had not intended to speak, but I felt impelled to do so by the rather unfavourable comments made by my right hon. Friend. One of the principal arguments he produced against the new Clause was that its effect would be inequitable as between various clergymen—that one clergyman might benefit more than another. But that is the principal argument for the Clause. These gifts are not remuneration as such; they are expressions of personal appreciation for services rendered, and they will naturally vary from individual to individual. In the latter part of his remarks my right hon. Friend said that he hoped that there would be discussions with the Churches and the Treasury. All I say to that is that
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick.
Finally, my right hon. Friend suggested that there might be a tax allowance of some kind. There is something to be said for that, but it seems to me that my right hon. Friend hedged his support for it with a number of reservations. In any case, no such proposal is before the Committee, whereas the new Clause puts forward a concrete proposal in respect of Easter offerings. From the Minister without Portfolio the clergy were offered personal sympathy, and the sympathy of various distinguished and not-so-distinguished former Chancellors of the Exchequer. What is required is not sympathy but a tangible expression of it in a measure of tax relief.
I find the Minister's arguments rather extraordinary. He says that the Clause cannot be accepted unless it can be shown that there is a virtually unanimous popular demand for this reform, backed up by the unanimity of the leaders of the three parties in the House. Would he apply that argument to the other Clauses in the Bill?

Mr. Hirst: Would he apply it to close companies, for instance?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: If not, why not? Why single out this Clause?
The question we have to ask is not whether there is unanimous support for the Clause in the country, or a favourable concensus of opinion among the leaders of the parties; it is whether or not this is a just measure. That is the

criterion of justice which should guide the Minister in his considerations.
He produced a number of arguments which I did not find convincing. First, there was the argument that these gifts arose from the office, as such. I have already pointed out that that is not so, and that these are personal tributes of appreciation to dedicated and zealous men and will vary directly in proportion to that dedication and zeal.
A further argument was that some denominations produced no Easter offerings, but remunerated their clergy on another basis. That may be so, but that is not an argument against the tax relief which is asked in respect of Easter offerings, because such collections are in a quite different category.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman said that a measure of tax relief was given in respect of covenants. That, again, was a powerful argument in favour of the Clause. If tax relief is given in respect of covenants, the non-existence of tax relief for these offerings becomes more anomalous than ever. I therefore hope that the Minister will abandon what I consider to be a rather legalistic approach and will regard these gifts as what they are, namely, free gifts which are given in a spirit of charity to dedicated men.
I hope that he will take note of the almost unanimous opinion expressed in the debate and will give the matter further consideration. If he does so he will earn himself an honoured if small niche in the ecumenical movement, and also earn the gratitude and good wishes of many hon. Members.

5.45 p.m.

Sir Eric Fletcher: I am sure that many hon. Members wish to press on with our other business. [Interruption.] I still think that many hon. Members would like to proceed with the other business that we have to do today. I thought that it might help the Committee if, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I said that the Treasury Ministers will at any time be ready to consider any representations made on this subject by the Churches' Main Committee. I hope that with that assurance—that if we pass from the matter today it will not necessarily be the end of it—we can pass on.

Mr. Heath: Does the Minister without Portfolio mean that he is in favour of


the Churches' Main Committee discusing these matters with him, and that he will consider the matter further with any members of the Churches or of this House?

Sir Eric Fletcher: I shall be happy to consider further representations on this subject which may be made by any hon. Member.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I have sat through the debate and I want to make one or two points. It would appear to those back benchers who are in favour of some action being taken on this subject—and some of us have been pursuing the matter for years; I made a speech on it in 1960—that both Front Benches are against us. I am surprised to find that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) appeared to have such unanimous support. He got support from both sides of the Committee on at least one point that he made.

Mr. Heath: I would like to make it clear to my hon. Friend that he does not have his own front bench against him. We are discussing the best way to handle what is admittedly a very difficult and complex matter.

Mr. Lewis: I have listened to the speech made from my Front Bench, and I did not gather from it that it was likely that there would be support for the new Clause.
I do not wish to suggest that there is no sympathy on either Front Bench for the principle involved. However, this has been discussed now for a number of years, and we have had expressions of sympathy from both Front Benches from time to time as Budget has followed Budget. Nothing has ever been done about it. The fact remains that, whatever the Treasury may say about the amount which is contributed in an Easter offering being income, the people who provide the gift on Easter day to the clergy look upon it as a gift. They do not look upon it as income or as in any way an addition to salary.
In the first place, of course, the amount given can vary and may be large in one church and small in another. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) indicated that there was some difficulty because clergy

of certain denominations receive most of their income from voluntary gifts. I think that the right hon. Member the Minister without Portfolio also mentioned, in the same terms, that salaries are provided for the clergy wholly out of collections. It would be exceptional in any Church that some clergy did not have a fixed salary.
Therefore, whether the clergyman's income comes out of voluntary collections or whether it is paid otherwise, as in the Church of England, it is certainly at a rate fixed by the church council or by the board of managers of the church at the beginning of the year or when the clergyman is appointed. Therefore, anything paid in the way of gifts is not part of the regular income of the clergyman. It is an extra.
It has been said on previous discussions on this matter that there are instances of people who receive income which is not taxed. We have the example of the cricketer who receives a benefit. He receives large sums of money—hundreds and sometimes thousands of pounds—and this is completely tax-free. There is, in my submission, another very good example. There are many people in this country who work on the basis of receiving a taxed salary plus gifts in the form of tips. I do not want to suggest that a gift to a clergyman is in the form of a tip—it is a gift—but many people receive amounts and the Treasury finds difficulty in assessing what those amounts are. What happens? The tax inspector arranges that a certain amount is fixed and that this amount is assessed as the income in the form of tips and that what is received over and above this amount is then completely tax-free to the recipient.
I would suggest that there is a perfectly easy way out—

Sir Douglas Glover: My hon. Friend is not quite accurate about the tips, because a person who receives tips declares them as part of his income.

Mr. Lewis: The fact remains that the Treasury has always had difficulty over this. Therefore, the tax inspector has fixed an amount and above that amount no other questions are asked.
I would suggest that there is a way out for both Front Benches on this, if this matter is to be considered in future,


though one appreciates that there are difficulties—that is, that they should say that the first £50 of any amount received in an Easter offering or annual collection made for the clergy should be tax-free and that above that amount it should be liable for tax. This would have the advantage of covering many of the Easter collections and other collections, because the average is said to be about £43. It would cover most of them and it would have an added advantage in that those clergy who are better placed to get larger offerings would not get the advantage of a large amount of income free of tax.
I ask that, by Report stage, or, at any rate, at some time in the future, this should be looked at. The Minister without Portfolio said that there was no popular demand for this. If this were conceded by any Government, it would be received—this is non-political—with great popular acclaim, not only by those who regularly attend Church, but by the general public.

Sir D. Glover: I am not at all surprised that the Minister without Portfolio and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle)—who have experience of Treasury affairs—or any other ex-Chancellor, do not want to allow Easter offerings to be free of tax. After all, this is about the only good money the Treasury ever receives: it has at least been blessed before they receive it. I can, therefore, understand Treasury Ministers always wanting to keep this tax, so that their hands are clean from time to time.
However, this is a much more difficult problem. I think that speeches today have shown that even those of us who support this Clause have a very wide divergence of views as to how this matter should be tackled. Some say that the Easter offering should be entirely exempt from tax. My right hon. Friend said that, in the Nonconformist Churches, they do not have an Easter offering and remuneration of the parson is not aggravated in the same way as that of parsons in the Church of England, so there is an obligation there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) suggested that £50 should be free of tax. Another argument is that

this is not income because the better the priest, the higher the Easter offering. In other words, if I have a moderate priest, I put half a crown in the plate. If I have a good one, I might put £5 in the plate and think myself lucky to have him. It is my way of showing appreciation.
My hon. Friend now says that if a priest in one church is not very popular but the priest in another is, the first man will pay no tax on the £50 which is all he will receive and the second man, who receives £200, will pay tax on £150.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: My hon. Friend must appreciate that there are some extremely good clergy working in very difficult areas where it so happens that they have poor and small congregations.

Sir D. Glover: I accept that. My hon. Friend is perfectly right in his argument, but it shows that there is a difficulty in bringing justice into this Clause. For the first time in 15 days, I have something complimentary to say to the hon. Gentleman. He gave an extraordinarily poor reply, but at least, at the end of our discussion, he said that he was prepared to listen to any representations made by the Churches. I gather that this applies to any body or any hon. Member in the House. As this is not a party matter and I think that all hon. Members would like to have a greater degree of justice over what is looked upon as the Easter offerings I suggest that we do not divide the House on the Clause, but try to get agreement between now and Report.
I should like to take the hon. Gentleman up on what he said, because I thought that his suggestion went much further than he intended. He went quite a long way in suggesting that there should be discussions. I do not think that he had his heart in his brief today, because he has made speeches on this side of the House in the past which were in favour of the spirit of this Clause. There are many difficulties to iron out. One of the great difficulties, of course, is that, clearly, the present law encourages parsons and churchwardens to be dishonest. I cannot think of any system which will break down the moral life of this country—it is breaking down rapidly enough—more than one by which the one tower of truth and purity, the Churches, are encouraged to be dishonest.
If I send a parson a private gift it is not subject to tax, but if I go to church and put the same amount of money in the plate it is. Every sensible person must agree that we cannot go on having these debates year after year. Whatever view the Treasury takes, the amount of money involved is a mere bagatelle. The process needs tidying up and I hope that the Minister without Portfolio will call a conference of people who understand the problem and obtain a coherent solution of it.
6.0 p.m.
The new Clause is not a complete answer to the problem. The majority of people who are interested in this matter are sick and tired of the subject being raised year by year, meaning that we are debating the matter in a vacuum, so to speak. Since the Minister promised to try to find a solution by having consultations an the subject, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the new Clause.

Sir C. Black: In the light of the assurance that has been given—that the Treasury will consider representations without delay and prior to Report—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.

Sir Eric Fletcher: I did not say before Report. This will take some time, but I would welcome dicussions on the subject with the hon. Gentleman and others who are interested in it to see whether a solution can be found which is acceptable to all parties in the Committee.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): The Question is—

Sir Eric Fletcher: On a point of order. I understood that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) wished to withdrawn the new Clause.

The Deputy-Chairman: He cannot withdraw it after an hon. Member has intervened. It would be out of order for him to do so.

Sir Eric Fletcher: I thought that I intervened before the hon. Gentleman had withdrawn it.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) asked leave to withdraw the new Clause. If an hon. Member rises after that, the Question must be put.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause.—(PETROL, FOR FLYING CLUBS.)

The rate of duty for hydrocarbon oils used by flying clubs (for the purposes of such clubs) shall revert to two shillings and ninepence a gallon.—[Mrs. Renée Short.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Renée Short: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
When moving the previous new Clause the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) said that the subject with which it was concerned had been discussed many times in Parliament. I cannot recall the subject of my new Clause having been discussed very frequently. Indeed, although hon. Members have asked Questions about it in recent months, I do not think that we have debated it at any length.
I am glad to have this opportunity of putting forward a new Clause which draws attention to a matter which is of considerable importance, certainly in my constituency, and which affects us nationally. I hope to demonstrate its importance.
As long ago as 1947 a special advisory committee was set up by the then Labour Government, under the chairmanship of Mr. Whitney Straight, which reported on the need to assist private flying clubs in various ways. That committee stated the obvious when it said that a healthy aircraft industry was essential to the nation and added:
A vigorous national aviation movement is of fundamental importance to the future wellbeing of the British aircraft industry.
It is important in many ways. If we are to have a flourishing aviation movement backing a successful aircraft industry the movement must he available to all members of the population who want to take part in it. In other words, all men and women should be able to fly without having to spend too much on it. The people engaged in the production of aircraft should have the opportunity to fly aircraft. But, most important of all, the sport should be available to young people.
The report to which I referred stated that flying charges were then £3 an hour, far too expensive for the average person and way beyond the means of all, but a small section of the population. It


also stated that £3 an hour resulted in a loss of at least £1 an hour to the clubs on each hour flown. Certain recommendations were made and I will concentrate on those which dealt with flying clubs.
The committee recommended that there should be a subsidy, rising to a maximum of £900,000 a year, which should be made available to approved flying clubs to enable flying charges to be reduced to £1 an hour and that the whole matter should be reviewed after a three-year period. It further suggested that there should be subsidies and bonuses for licence holders. In its report, the committee noted that petrol tax was a considerable burden on aircraft users and pointed out that in many countries a sharp differentiation was made between tax on petrol for flying and tax on petrol for motor vehicles. In many cases, it stated, no tax was charged on petrol for aviation. In any event, the tax charged in other countries is substantially lower than that imposed on road users.
Bearing in mind the state of our roads today, hon. Members might feel that it would not be a bad idea if more of us got airborne. The recommendations put forward in 1947 were not implemented by either the Labour Government of the day or successive Conservative Governments. Instead of help to the tune of £900,000 being given—as it was suggested should be given to about 100 clubs at the rate of about £9,000 a year each—a rebate on petrol tax was introduced in the early 'fifties in an effort to help to form a pool of pilots. At least, that was the reason for it, according to a Parliamentary Answer. In 1964 the total cost of that subsidy was £75,000. That, therefore, is the amount we are discussing now.
Hon. Members will probably have noted with some amusement the figure quoted in the 1947 report of the cost of flying, then £3 an hour. In my constituency there is a flying club which is owned by the local authority but which is managed by a private company. It has many enthusiastic members who are constituents of mine and it happens to be next door to a large engineering firm which is engaged mainly on sub-contract work for the aircraft industry. Thus, the men working in that factory are directly interested in the aircraft industry.
At the end of 1964 the cost of flying was £5 an hour, expensive enough, but what is regarded as the final blow fell when, about six months ago, the rebate was removed. That had the effect of putting the cost of an hour's flying time up to £5 7s. 6d., which, it has been represented to me by members of my local club, was just about the last straw. They point out that £5 an hour was expensive enough, but that £5 7s. 6d. is prohibitive.
There are 116 flying clubs in this country and about 110 flying groups. Great progress has been made since 1947, when the report to which I referred was produced and when there were only 50 or so flying clubs throughout the country. We see that these clubs have grown in popularity and I hope that this Committee will agree that we should do all we can to encourage them. All these flying clubs and flying groups are similarly affected.
I am sure that the Committee will also wish to encourage young people to go in for flying, and for the sake of the industry as a whole I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to give us a lead there. There is undoubtedly a great potential interest in aviation amongst young people, but practical encouragement is necessary if this interest is to be fully aroused, and it is with that that I am very concerned. I believe that it would be most undesirable if flying were to become the exclusive and expensive sport of the few who can afford these present-day prices, but that is a danger since the recent rise in petrol duty combined with removal of the rebate.
The support we give to flying clubs compares very unfavourably with that given by other countries, of which France and America are outstanding. For this very small sum of £75,000 a popular and growing movement has been jeopardised and enthusiasts have been hard hit. I hope that we may be told that the Government will restore the position to what it was about six months ago before the rebate was removed. Concessions have been made during the progress of this Bill, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to agree to a proposal that is very modest compared with many others that have been made.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to indicate the support he can give the aviation industry, and that he will bear in mind particularly the need to encourage young people, who are the pilots of the future, and make it possible for them to enjoy this sport.

Mr. Hector Monro: The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) has been kind to the Government by omitting to mention the extra 6d. duty imposed on petrol in the November Finance Budget. That increase has a direct bearing on this problem. Allowing for the very small grant made in recent months to gliding, and the promised loan or grant, I am not sure which, to the Beagle Aircraft Company, nothing else that has happened since October has encouraged private flying.
The former concession was extremely valuable to flying clubs. It may or not have been the best way of giving a subsidy, but that is what the committee which inquired into the subject recommended. It has been of immense value. What has not been brought out is the flying cost in terms of rate per hour per aircraft. That is probably the easiest means of comparison, as all rates are related to cost per hour. The two British light aircraft perhaps most commonly used are the Beagle Terrier and the Beagle Airedale; the tax concession in the one case is 11s. 11d., and, in the other, 10s. 4d.
Because American airframes are lighter and need less horse power, fuel consumption is lower; so for United States aircraft the tax rebate works out at 9s. 7d. for the Tripacer and 8s. 8d. for the Cesna 172. The tax concession helped the British industry as it was higher than that given to American aircraft, because of the design and structure. That helped sales. Sales of British light aircraft have always been disappointingly low, and we should do all we can to increase them.
6.15 p.m.
The increase in fuel tax in November put up the flying cost, in round figures, by 5s. an hour. If we add to that the lost tax concession of 10s. or 11s. it means an average increase in the cost of flying private aircraft of 17s. an hour since November. I think that the hon. Lady's flying club was doing well at £5 an hour. I believe the average figure to

be £5 5s. to £5 10s., and on the figures I have given the cost will be £6 an hour. The position is even more serious when we bear in mind the cost of an aircraft that has a certificate for instruction. It is very rare to be able to fly an aircraft with this qualification at under £7 5s. an hour.
All this is most discouraging to those who want to learn to fly. We owe a tremendous debt to those who learned to fly in the 'thirties and helped so much in the Royal Air Force in the last war. We always need a pool of skilled pilots, and it is of no use members of the Government saying that the average light aircraft pilot will not be much use flying a Phantom jet. I would rather start, if I had to, at the beginning of war with those used to flying light aircraft. It would be easier to convert pilots to jets than to start with them from the beginning. It used to be said before the war that pilots should not learn on Tiger Moths if they were to fly Spitfires, but it is not so difficult to convert pilots from one type of aircraft to another as some people seem to think.
A serious situation will arise in the next year or two over pilots of British airliners. The supply of airline pilots is not large. In many cases, they are men who have left the Royal Air Force, but we do not want to encourage people to leave the R.A.F. in order to fly with the airliners. We want the airline pilots to be recruited from the aircraft clubs. At the same time, the mere fact that we have flying clubs and flying groups encourages local authorities, such as the local authority mentioned by the hon. Lady, to run their own airports. That is of great advantage to industry and communications. The use of light aircraft should be of far greater importance to industry than it is now, and the more airports we have the more likely we are to have more executives flying.
I urge the Government to give very careful consideration to this new Clause, as it means so much to our young people, and to the future of our airlines and of British industry generally.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) is to be congratulated on putting down this new Clause, and I trust that her enterprise


will be rewarded by acceptance and not just by reassuring noises from the Treasury Bench. Nothing short of acceptance will get rid of the extremely unfortunate position into which her own Government has put flying.
Following the rundown of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve we are reduced virtually to one source of pilots other than the Royal Air Force, and that is the training schools of the civil airlines.
There is a school of thought that holds that unless one is trained on jet aircraft it is better not be trained at all; in other words, one should have ab initio training in jet aircraft, or none at all. That argument is largely fallacious, for two reasons. In the first place, the basic skills involved in navigation of learning the positional flight rules and the instrument rules are not related to the type of aircraft flown but are general knowledge. That general knowledge takes time to acquire. It must be so acquired that it is applied instinctively, because rules only work to serve safety if they become part of a person's instinctive reaction rather than something memorised merely in order to pass examinations.
That is why it is so necessary that people should fly regularly and not merely qualify in offices. Not only are reactions to aerodynamic situations in the air a matter of response which needs practice, but even the response to safety regulations themselves requires practice.
If this country needs suddenly—as it may well do—to expand its Service pilots either in Transport Command or in the combative commands, unless we have flying clubs going strongly there will be only the commercial airlines to call on. The paradox is that it would be trying to call on their pilots at the same time as it was calling on their transportation facilities and this would be largely self-cancelling. In America, the Federal Government recognise the value of commercially-owned airlines in the defence structure and pay a concealed subsidy in the form of a mail subsidy for this specific purpose so that it has a reserve on which to call.
It would be inaccurate to say that we have not a reserve of pilots, but that reserve is being eroded in more ways

than one. As people get older, even they have to face qualifications and there is the increased financial burden in learning to fly. The reserve is eroded further because at the end of National Service the Royal Air Force, and to a smaller extent the Royal Navy, is not feeding to the country people who have been trained to fly with the very high standards required by the Armed Forces.
It will not have passed unnoticed by the Committee that in the last few years the Army has developed an air arm, flying light aircraft very often just of the kind to which a concession of this nature would apply. Whereas, five years ago, it might have appeared that in the fullness of time all military aircraft, whether transport or combative, would be jet aircraft, the present Government have elected to buy a large number of turbo-prop aircraft from America. So far as one can tell, the Army Air Corps is using piston-engined aircraft very similar to the type used by flying clubs.
I join with the hon. Lady in urging the Financial Secretary not to smile sweetly at the proposal and then to kill it with faint praise and stop short of accepting it. I hope that he will welcome the opportunity to correct errors which the present Government have made. I hope that he will do so both in the national interest and the interests of all concerned. I should never offer to the Committee as a good reason for exempting one form of sport merely that people enjoy it, but, equally, one must not adopt the other approach that because people enjoy it we can afford to tax it even more heavily. That is a fallacy of the same calibre, although it is at the opposite pole.
I look forward to later in the evening, when the Committee has had an opportunity of investigating every aspect of the merits of this most worthy Clause, to hearing the Financial Secretary, or whoever has by then replaced him, saying that having given due consideration to this proposal before it appeared on the Notice Paper the Government had decided to accept it. Alternatively, I hope that it will be said that, having heard the compelling case made on its behalf, the Government will accept the proposal.

Commander Anthony Courtney: I support my hon. Friends


in what they have said and in offering congratulations to the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) for giving the Committee a chance today of debating this very important subject.
I wonder whether the Chancellor, having decided to withdraw the petrol tax concession, realises what he was doing to his own interests, which, of course, are the national interests, in connection with light aviation generally and the light aviation industry in particular. I wonder whether he realises that this precipitate and unfortunate action, following the imposition of an extra 6d. a gallon on petrol tax last November, was the straw finally to break the camel's back for quite a number of light aeroplane groups and clubs in the country. We have all had evidence that they are seriously considering whether they can or cannot continue operating as a result of these new burdens.
How does the Chancellor equate this decision, which we are hoping that he will reverse today, with the expressed intention to support the light aviation industry of the country? On the one hand, he puts 6d. on petrol and takes away the previous petrol concession while, on the other, he gives £600,000 to the single British light aircraft manufacturer on loan to support the aviation industry and abolishes the junior Flying Wing of the Royal Air Force, which was a very important source of revenue for these clubs. If the left hand ever knew what the right hand was doing, it is not evident in the actions of this Government in relation to light aviation.
I ask the Financial Secretary to look at what is being done and at what we are asking should be undone in the light of other factors which are important. With excellent advice, some of it coming from beyond these shores, the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it is impossible to consider a thriving light aviation industry without having a thriving home market for that industry. Why is it that the clubs of this country are subjected to a steady flow of American aircraft? We have the Tripacer, the Cessna 172, the Beechcraft, the German Bolkow, a French make and several varieties of Australian aircraft, some with a British engine. Because of the appalling state of our light aviation industry, it is found

profitable to build aircraft in Australia, to fit them with a Rolls-Royce engine and ship them over here to he competitive with the British light aviation market.
This links with the point made by the hon. Lady about the Whitney Straight report of 1947. The design of that Australian aircraft, which is known to some hon. Members on this side of the Committee, was a British design which was turned down by the Government. I do not know whether it was turned down by that Committee or by the British industry. If the Government are to support a home market, I beg that they should think again about this new Clause.
It will be known to the Committee that we have recently formed a Parliamentary flying club. For the purpose of getting hon., and I hope, right hon. Members into the air, we are training them on a sequence of Chipmunk and Airedale aircraft. Both a Chipmunk and an Airedale, if engaged on local flying tuition—circuits and bumps, as we sometimes describe it in the business—use petrol at the rate of about 10 gallons an hour. At the present rate, petrol and oil consumption, apart from tuition, depreciation and maintenance, works out at about £3 an hour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), who rightly mentioned the saving we previously got but of which we are now deprived, might have strengthened his own argument by giving the actual cost, which I repeat is about £3 an hour. Therefore, half the charge of £5 or £6 an hour made for private tuition goes in petrol costs. On any reckoning, this is an unwarranted burden on the light aviation market which supports our light aviation industry.
The Government should consider the Clause in the light of this very important turning point in British light aviation. We have one manufacturer. We have a steady stream of light aircraft from the Continent and from America, simply because many of them use less petrol than the British aeroplanes and are therefore more economical for the private clubs and groups which are in such dire straits at the moment. If these clubs and groups are to be saved, some such provision as that envisaged in the Clause will have to be made by the Government. I ask the Government to do that this evening.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I hope that the Committee will forgive me if, for two minutes, I speak on a subject in which I have a direct personal interest. I have some knowledge of this subject. I am a director of a company which runs a flying club, which. I am glad to say, is a successful one.
I support everything which has been said so far, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) on moving the Clause. I hope that the Committee will not think it churlish of me if I say that I am sorry that no one from the Ministry of Aviation has seen fit to be present. I had intended to ask, if the Government did not see fit to accept the Clause, whether they would at least go some way towards setting up a committee rather on the lines of the 1947 committee which has been referred to.
Perhaps the Minister of Aviation would give some consideration to it at a later date. I do not know whether the Leader of the House has expressed his views on these matters, but he was a distinguished member of that committee and I should have thought that he would have viewed with revulsion the Government's decision to withdraw this concession.
May I tell the Committee of the concessions which some other countries give to light aviation? France allows light aviation to recover about £400,000 a year in fuel tax. In Italy, duty-free fuel is allowed up to a certain limit. Iron Curtain countries provide very cheap flying for students up to a certain limit. Canada makes these grants. In the United States, grants are made towards the provision or improvement of airfields. Holland makes grants to flying clubs. It is only in this country, as a result of the Government's latest action, that no support whatsoever is given to light aviation.
Light aviation is important for this country in the long-term, not only for defence reasons, but for our industries. The more businesses that fly, the better and the more efficient British industry will be. If this concession were made, it would help British industry to become even more efficient as the years pass. This concession would cost the Government £70,000 or £75,000, which is not a large sum of money. If the Govern-

ment's attitude is that they would not like this concession to be made, I hope that they will suggest some alternative which will do something to alleviate the plight of so many flying clubs which find themselves in grave difficulties as a result of the Government's latest action.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I should like to add my support for the new Clause. Flying clubs are a deserving case. They have had two knocks. At £75,000 this would be a very cheap concession. The Government are spending £½ million on rich football clubs. I should have thought that it would be fair to spend this sum of £75,000 on flying clubs. It is a sorry state of affairs if the Minister of Sport can give six times the amount of money to football as the Treasury or the Minister of Aviation can give to these deserving flying clubs, which are in difficulty at the moment. Perhaps these clubs would do better if they came under the Minister of Sport instead of under the Ministry of Aviation.
I hope that the Government will accept the Clause.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I want briefly, but strongly, to support the new Clause and congratulate the hon. Lady for Wolverhampton, North (Mrs. (Mrs. Renée Short) on bringing it forward. I think I am right in saying that Air Chief Marshal Sir Geoffrey Salmond was the originator of the idea of flying clubs between the wars. They were the source of many of the most heroic of the auxiliary squadrons, such as 601 and 603 in the Midlands. This might not particularly appeal to the hon. Lady. The Midland area is still supplying members for the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve.
I pass swiftly to a point which may appeal more to the hon. Lady. There is great importance in having a strong aviation movement and in the whole country being air conscious. The hon. Lady probably has the same idea as I have, that just as our prosperous Midland car workers and those who are working in the sub-contracting industry for the aircraft industry became car owners during the time of the Conservative Government, I would like them in the future to have the opportunity of taking part in the air as a sport.
It is a sport today, but it is something which strengthens the country's industry


and allows the country to take part in the modern movement of industry. In particular, it will assist us a good deal and will become even more important if and when we join the Common Market, when we, too, will have the advantage, enjoyed by countries such as Australia and the United States today, of greater distances, which encourage more flying. This is a reason why at present, when we have not got this advantage, we should do something to encourage more people to fly.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): Like other hon. Members, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North East (Mrs. Renée Short). It is a remarkable achievement, on her first Finance Bill, to have tabled a new Clause which has been selected and one which has excited interest and provoked an interesting debate, which has ranged widely over private flying.
Obviously, my hon. Friend has made researches. She said that there does not appear to have been a debate on this subject for some time. This is not surprising, because what she seeks to do by the Clause is to reintroduce a fuel tax concession for private flying clubs which was introduced as a temporary relief—I stress that—after the war and which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation decided to discontinue in December last.
It is a sorry experience at the Treasury that one is constantly being pressed from all sides to try to cut down on public expenditure. Whenever any suggestion is made that we ought to be more vigorous in cutting down public expenditure, as long as one is talking only in generalities one gets full-throated support. As soon as one tries in the most modest way to give effect to that principle, it provokes a debate of this character.
The fact is, as my right hon. Friend announced, that we are making a strict review of public expenditure. That has involved in some cases delaying new projects and in some cases reducing existing expenditure. Some are large items. Some are small. If a review of this kind is to be carried out fairly and properly, the small items, as well as the large, must be considered. Obviously, where

a concession was introduced for a specific purpose and declared to be a temporary measure, asked for as a temporary measure and granted as a temporary measure, there comes a time when it qualifies for reconsideration.
The justification for this debate has long since disappeared. It was introduced first as an Amendment to the 1950 Finance Bill following the report of the Whitney Straight committee, to which my hon. Friend referred. Its declared purpose was to help flying clubs to re-establish themselves after the war. It has been recognised for some time that the concession did not serve any long-term purpose, but it has been repeatedly extended on a year-to-year basis. It was in 1961 that the ceiling of £80,000 was established as the maximum sum to be distributed and from then on the subsidy per gallon has decreased. I hope that it will not be taken wrongly if I say that for many years what was originally intended to be a temporary relief has become, and has been seen to become, a subsidy for the sport of private flying which unfortunately is an expensive sport.
I was impressed by my hon. Friend's comment about how much she wishes that this could become a more widely available sport. One is delighted to hear of the workers engaged in the aircraft industry who are themselves keen to practise it through these clubs, but on the figures which have been given to the Committee it is obvious that either with or without the rebate this is not a sport which without considerable assistance from outside could be available on any wide scale. For some time this support was justified on the ground that the long-term defence needs of the country gave a justification for the rebate, as it was designed to help maintain the supply of trained pilots.
Despite all that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) said on this subject, I do not think that it can be argued that this justification still applies, with the increasing complexity of modern military aircraft and our changing defence needs. I do not think that the rebate can be supported on those grounds. Experience in single-engined aircraft does not go very far in the training of pilots required for modern aircraft.
It has also been suggested that a petrol tax rebate, by supporting the growth of


private flying, would help greatly in the production of light aircraft. The hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) raised this argument. In part, the answer is that this is not a very probable result, because I think that it is right to say that the hopes of manufacturers of light aircraft in this country are more concentrated upon the kind of aircraft which is being developed for use by executives.

Commander Courtney: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman remind the Committee how many British aircraft are being manufactured for that purpose?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Thomas Steele): Order. We are not discussing the whole subject of the British aviation industry.

Mr. MacDermot: Apart from the fact that it has been ruled out of order, I confess that I would have been quite unable to answer that question, which no doubt is the reason why the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East framed it in a way which would floor a Treasury Minister. I do not apologise that I am unable to answer something which is quite outside my departmental responsibility.
Reference was made to the fact that Beagles, a leading manufacturer of small aircraft have been given a £600,000 grant to help with the launching costs of a newly developed and highly efficient aircraft, which shows that the Government are directly supporting the light aircraft industry. The petrol rebate achieved its purpose in helping these clubs to reestablish themselves after the war, but it was never intended as a permanent subsidy and it is felt that the clubs which have had the benefit of this concession for many years should be able now to stand on their own feet.
6.45 p.m.
It is not right to say that they receive no support from public funds, because they still benefit from Ministry of Defence schemes which provide about £120,000 a year towards the training of school-boys and cadets at private flying clubs. Reference has been made to the fact that support is given by means of grants to the training of amateur pilots in other countries.
I suggest to the Committee that if it is thought right to support that activity further—and I have pointed out that considerable support is given already—surely the way to do it is by direct grant aimed to provide the help wanted for the purpose wanted rather than by continuing a general subsidy of this kind. I believe that the total number of private fliers in this country is about 8,000 and the cost of this subsidy, as has been pointed out, has been running now for some time with a ceiling of £80,000, working out at about £10 per head per annum.
I was asked whether this activity could not be regarded as a sport and whether the Government could not give help to it as a sport. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is responsible for sport, is present. There are two connected activities which have been recently accepted as being sports for this purpose, namely parachute jumping and glider flying. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is susceptible to the argument that private flying of this kind should be regarded and accepted as a sport. If so, I can only urge hon. Members to address their arguments to him. As it is, I am glad to have had the opportunity of explaining why the Government took the step they did last September.
Despite the arguments put forward so persuasively on both sides of the Committee, I do not think that I can advise the Committee that any alteration should be made in this direction.

Mr. William Clark: I should like to add my congratulations to the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) on bringing the Clause before the Committee. I am sure that the whole Committee would like to say to the Financial Secretary how much we enjoyed his frankness in saying that he could not answer the question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney), but that adds weight to the inquiry by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) why the Minister of Aviation is not here. This is an aviation matter and, with great respect to the Financial Secretary, if he does not know the answers to these technical


matters it would have been better to have had the Minister of Aviation here.
The Clause would cover 116 clubs plus approximately the same number of flying groups. But we must look at the background. The tax on petrol was 2s. 9d. per gallon before this Government came in and then, last October, it was raised to 3s. 3d. The new Clause would provide only that it should revert to 2s. 9d., and it has nothing whatever to do with the original rebate. The Financial Secretary did not make this clear in his speech.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the cost of rebate, which on my reckoning was running at about 1s. 2d. per gallon, was a ceiling of £80,000. Consequently, the hon. Lady's Clause would cost the revenue about £40,000, and that is the context in which this matter should be considered. We must remember also that the Government by their cancellation of the 1s. 2d. rebate, which came into effect in March this year, saved the Exchequer £75,000 or £80,000, and the hon. Lady is asking for only part of that. That is the position in a nutshell.
The cancellation of the rebate penalised British aircraft because of their higher fuel consumption and gave an advantage to American aircraft which, with their lighter frame, did not use so much fuel. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) said, reinforcing the observations of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harrow, East, the light aircraft industry is vital to this country. It is no good the Financial Secretary saying that the industry concentrates on making executive aeroplanes and we need not, therefore, think about other light aeroplanes. Different kinds of motor cars are made, but no one argues that the motor car industry ought not to manufacture the cheap ones because it also manufactures expensive ones. The aircraft industry must be considered as a whole. Again, it is regrettable that the Minister of Aviation is not here, because the aircraft industry has been struck many hard blows by the Government during the past few months.
In a rather cavalier manner, the Financial Secretary brushed aside the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for

Dumfries (Mr. Monro) when he reminded the Committee that flying clubs and groups form a reserve for pilots. This is obvious. Everyone will agree that flying clubs, particularly now that the Junior Fying Wing of the R.A.F. has been run down, provide a reserve of potential pilots for civil airlines and for military aircraft.

There is no question of tax avoidance under this new Clause. I am quite sure that the hon. Lady has no such intention, and, although there may be certain loopholes in it as drafted, the spirit behind the new Clause is that the concession should be given to bona fide flying clubs.

It is all very well for the Financial Secretary to emphasise that we must cut down public expenditure. We shall not reduce public expenditure by niggling at £40,000 savings. Let us get at something more important. Of course, we want to cut public expenditure, but the Treasury Bench should not quibble at a concession costing £40,000, in view of the importance of this matter so rightly demonstrated by the hon. Lady. Flying is becoming an ever more common form of transport. Obviously, with constant travel backwards and forwards on business between this country and the Continent, the aircraft industry will have to produce more and more light aircraft. If the light aircraft industry is hit, the Government will, by their short-sighted policy, bring about a situation in which we may well lose the race against our American, German and French competitors.

The Financial Secretary has brushed this debate off and given us a Treasury brief in reply, ignoring the fact that the sum involved would be about £40,000, not £80,000. We welcome the opportunity which the hon. Lady has given us to discuss the matter, and, if the Financial Secretary will not give way, I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to press the matter to a Division. In dividing the Committee, we shall very much welcome the company of the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East with us in the Lobby.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 63, Noes 69.

Division No. 200.]
AYES
[6.57 p.m.


Baker, W. H. K.
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Bryan, Paul


Barlow, Sir John
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Bessell, Peter
Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)




Curran, Charles
Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dance, James
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Eden, Sir John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Emery, Peter
Kimball, Marcus
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Farr, John
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lubbock, Eric
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
MacArthur, Ian
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
Walder, David (High Peak)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Ward, Dame Irene


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maude, Angus
Whitelaw, William


Hay, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mills, Peter (Torrington)



Hirst, Geoffrey
Monro, Hector
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hooson, H. E.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Mr. Francis Pym and


Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Mr. Dudley Smith.




NOES


Atkinson, Norman
Howie, W.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Baxter, William
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Blackburn, F.
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, w.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Small, William


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank
MacColl, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Diamond, John
MacDermot, Niall
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Doig, Peter
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Symonds, J. B.


Driberg, Tom
McLeavy, Frank
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Manuel, Archie
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mason, Roy
Tinn, James


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mellish, Robert
Tomney, Frank


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Neal, Harold
Warbey, William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Ogden, Eric
Watkins, Tudor


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
O'Malley, Brian
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hale, Leslie
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Hannan, William
Pentland, Norman
Zilliacus, K.


Harper, Joseph
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)



Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Randall, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Redhead, Edward
Mr. George Lawson and




Mrs. Harriet Slater.

New Clause.—(NON-FERROUS METAL MINES IN UNITED KINGDOM: RELIEF FROM CORPORATION TAX.)

(1) Profits of a trade commenced after the passing of this Act and consisting of or including the working of a non-ferrous metal mine situated within the United Kingdom, being profits arising from the working of the mine and so arising during a period of thirty-six months, beginning with the day on which the mine is first brought into commercial operations, shall be exempt from the corporation tax.

(2) For the purposes of this section a mine shall be deemed to be brought into commercial operation as soon as substantial quantities of ore are extracted from the mine for any treatment and for disposal; and such substantial quantities shall not be taken to include ore extracted in the course of searching for, discovering or testing mineral deposits or winning access thereto.—[Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This may have a ring about it of worthiness in your memory, Mr. Steele, that you perhaps cannot place. It would only exempt for three years new and not existing non-ferrous metal mines in the United Kingdom from Corporation Tax. What is it necessary to show in order to establish an overwhelming case for what is obviously an exception to the general rule of the Bill and of all previous Finance Acts? First, there is the trend in world supply of tin in the last four years.
Obviously, the major change is in the position of Malaysia. Four years ago, Malaya, as it then was, had not encountered the confrontation policy of Indonesia. Now, of course, both the position of Malaysia and, even more so, the supply of raw materials from outside its frontier has encountered a major change. I believe that about 40 per cent. of the tin exported by Malaysia before the confrontation came from Indonesia into


Singapore and then was included in the total of exports as a re-export element. Now, of course, this large proportion is lost. Indonesia is endeavouring to find other channels of distribution, but with incomplete success. So, from the point of view of the major supplier to the world market—Malaysia—the supply is, to put it mildly, uncertain.
The second major source of supply traditionally has been Bolivia. In recent months, the President, General Barrientos, has exiled the Vice-President, Senor Lechin, from the country. The Vice-President was also president of the Mineworkers' Union. The result has been a virtual state of siege so that the reorganisation of Bolivian tin mines, which were in a parlous condition, both financially and organisationally, has once more been postponed into the indefinite future.
However, even had that reorganisation already taken place the challenge from Bolivian tin mines would still be diminishing because the richest accessible mines are being worked out and it is the poorer loads which are being worked now. In addition, the Bolivian mineworkers have a large supply of firearms with which they are able quite effectively to defy the central Government.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will relate what he is saying to the Clause. He is going rather wide at the moment.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My point is that the less we can depend on foreign sources of tin to supply the British tinplate industry the more critical it becomes to us that we should encourage the development of domestic tin production. Unless we can guarantee a supply of tin for the tinplate industry, then our tinplate industry, particularly in South Wales, is at hazard.
The object of the Clause is to encourage our domestic tin production. I was endeavouring to show why it is that we need a greater measure of encouragement for British domestic tin production, which means in effect, Cornish tin production. We have been shown that Bolivia is no longer a reliable source.
The third change over the last of three or four years is that the considerable buffer stocks of tin which had been built

up largely to act as a price stabilising factor are now completely exhausted and the price of tin therefore accurately reflects supply and demand, and as demand is consistently exceeding supply, the price is rising. In only the last four years the price of tin in this country has risen from £880 to £1,460 per ton, at which it stood yesterday. There is the evidence of the effect of the shortage on the price of tin at home, and this naturally must affect greatly the economic viability of the industry which uses it, namely, the tinplate industry.
What is the object of the new Clause? First and foremost it saves foreign currency. Both sides of the Committee will regard the saving of foreign currency as a highly commendable objective. Bolivian currency is hard, being South American, but we would do well to conserve all the Malaysian currency we can by increasing domestic production.
Secondly, as well as saving foreign currency we want so far as we are able in what is an elastic market to endeavour to stabilise the rising prices by increasing supplies. It is not within the power of the Committee to increase the available supply in Bolivia. Other provisions in the Bill will certainly discourage investment by this country in Malaysia, among other places such as Nigeria or other parts of the Commonwealth. However, it is within the power of the Committee to give extra incentives to our own domestic production. Thirdly, it so happens that where these minerals are accessibly situated is also an area of higher than average unemployment.
Therefore, we would achieve three objectives which I am sure both sides of the Committee share and which could be achieved—and here is the miracle which will appeal, I hope irresistibly, to the Minister without Portfolio—at no cost to the Treasury. I do not know how many Amendments have come before the Committee of which it could literally be said that they were at no cost to the Treasury.
As these concessions do not apply to existing enterprises, the Treasury is not sacrificing any revenue. Moreover, the occasion to which the new Clause applies does not arise unless and until there are new tin-mining enterprises in the United Kingdom. I have used tin as an example


because I have that metal particularly in mind, but the new Clause would apply to any other non-ferrous metal. I believe that there is a gold mine in Wales which is still operative and I see no reason why we should not also encourage domestic gold production.
Why is it that the present incentives are inadequate to attract sufficient capital into the Cornish tin-mining industry without any further assistance from taxation alleviation? First, tin comes in the form of lodes rather than in veins. It is extremely difficult to predict where tin will be found in workable paying quantities from taking sample drillings. It is a highly speculative form of investigation. Therefore, from that point of view, it is not of particular appeal to the money market, and the more so because in the same area, Cornwall, we have a highly attractive form of investment, china clay. China clay pits can be opened and closed at no very great expense or inconvenience, but once a tin mine is full of water the cost of pumping it out can be prohibitive.
As I have said, the cost to the Exchequer is nil on existing enterprises and if the provision were successful and it attracted further enterprises, then only for the first three years would those new enterprises be granted relief from Corporation Tax. If the Government share the objectives which I have enumerated and if they are concerned also with the future of the British tinplate industry—which anyway has a challenge on its hands from the aluminium industry, for tinplate is under attack from aluminium in the manufacture of containers—it is incumbent upon a Government interested in the tinplate industry, particularly in South Wales, to endeavour to take all steps which are reasonable and within their power to ensure a greater supply of domestically produced tin.
7.15 p.m.
One might ask whether it is reasonable to take steps which are within the Government's power and which will not result in a penny loss of revenue. If it is not reasonable, I do not know what reasonable means. That is why I look forward to hearing from the Minister without Portfolio that even though he may not have had sanction from the Cabinet to accept a new Clause, as this new Clause

demonstrably cannot result in any loss of income to the Treasury, he will be perfectly entitled to accept it on its merits without Cabinet approval.
I very much hope that these arguments will not be lost on him, because if a proposal which has everything to be said for it and nothing to be said against it cannot be accepted in debate, what on earth is the point of having a debate? Judging from the number of hon. Members opposite, one might wonder what was the purpose of having a debate.
The actual form of the new Clause may prove of interest to the Minister. We all know that one of the Members of the Committee, one of its right hon. Members, sometimes referred to as the "First Lord of the Scillies" and to whom the West Country is not unknown, might well be sympathetic to a new Clause couched in such undeniably persuasive tones.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I support the new Clause. As the Committee will recognise, its wording is almost identical with that of a new Clause to the Finance Bill of 1961 moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister on 21st June. A similar Clause was moved on 3rd July, 1961, to that year's Report stage of the Finance Bill by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). On both occasions I supported those right hon. Gentlemen, as did a number of my hon. Friends, because that new Clause was very similar to another which had been suggested by Sir Douglas Marshall who was then the hon. Member for Bodmin. On that occasion, I pointed out—and it is relevant to point out again in connection with this new Clause—that although special tax treatment would be given to a single industry, a principle to which the Treasury always objects, there were special reasons why the tin-mining industry should be singled out for special treatment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has said, there is a world shortage of tin and there are peculiar difficulties in working the raw materials for this metal, because, as my hon. Friend said, it occurs in lodes and not in strata or veins, which means that trying to estimate what will be the result of any mining operation is extremely speculative, and many developers hesitate


to work tin for that reason. There are also six points, particularly relevant to Cornwall, which should be borne in mind in connection with this new Clause. First it may be said beyond dispute that the Cornish tin mine industry did not decline because the supplies ran out. As anyone knows, there was for many years a very extensive Cornish tin mining industry, and it very largely diminished as a result not of a failure of supplies but because of cheaper production elsewhere in the world. Secondly, it is beyond dispute that there are still considerable quantities of tin in Cornwall. Thirdly, the price of tin is high and a shortage is beginning to appear in the world. Fourthly, this country imports large quantities of tin and any increased production in our home production would be of benefit to our balance of payments.
Fifthly, it is beyond dispute that Cornwall suffers from pockets of local unemployment from time to time because of the lack of diversification of her industries. If the tin mining industry and its ancilliaries could be revived it would be a very good thing from the employment angle. Lastly, it is also beyond dispute that in the two thousand years during which tin has been worked in Cornwall, mining has been dependent upon the physical strength and the intuitive knowledge of miners for the greater part of that time.
It was inevitable, despite their skill and ingenuity, that they should leave untapped a large number of sources which modern methods could develop so that the mere fact that there has been extensive tin mining in various areas does not mean that those mining areas are worked out. All those reasons, which I mentioned in the previous debate are still valid and in some respects are more important now than formerly. The price has certainly increased since then and if we can give any extra encouragement to tin mining it would be a very good thing from the national point of view.
Previous Chancellors have not been able to accept this new Clause and I could never understand why because, as has been pointed out, it would not cost anything. If one gives a tax holiday, which in effect this new Clause does, for-a limited period of 36 months to any new developer it means that the Revenue

does not receive any taxation during that period. But the Revenue gets nothing now because very little development is going on. It is true there are now and there were not on the previous occasion when this matter was debated, some 18 prospects being looked at in Cornwall. So far none of them have got very far and there is the basic difficulty in connection with tin that it is so speculative that people hesitate to put money into it. Provisions of this sort are in operation in a number of other countries as a bait to induce developers to have a try with tin.
I feel that if the Government could see their way to accept this new Clause it might help the developing tin industry in the West Country, which would be of benefit to the whole nation. If it does not cost the Treasury anything I do not see why they should not accept this Clause.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I rise to support my hon. Friends in the case they have put forward to the Minister without Portfolio. I hope that he will look at this sympathetically. As my hon. Friend has said, this is a very moderate Amendment. I think that the main points have already been made. The only thing that leads me to doubt the wisdom of this is the fact that in days gone by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister supported it. I rather wonder whether this is right or not, but putting that on one side I think that the main object must be to approach this from the national point of view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop) made a very strong case concerning the supplies of these non-ferrous metals to this country, the uncertainty of them and the fact that there could be difficulty over this.
I think, therefore, that from the national point of view it is very important to safeguard this. The point has been made by my hon. Friends that this will not cost the Treasury anything. It is true that in the past, previous Administrations have had to turn this down, but I think that the case is now different from this because my hon. Friends are putting forward a proposition that will apply only to those companies which start operations after the passing of this new Clause, should we succeed in making the


Treasury change their mind, when they are in a position to make a profit and only then for 36 months. So the amount of safeguards that exist from the Treasury's point of view are very substantial.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) said that trying to start a tin mine in Cornwall, which is the main area, is a very costly and expensive business. The wording of this new Clause says this concession should only arise within 36 months after the mine has first been brought into commercial operation. It could well be that during those 36 months the actual profits made could be very small indeed and the cost would be negligible. The point at issue is the fact that without some kind of concession, a gesture by the Government on this, it is very hard to see how we are going to encourage the opening up and the continuation of the very few existing tin mining operations that are being carried on at this moment.
In my view and those of my hon. Friends it is extremely important that we should do what we can to safeguard the supply of tin to our economy and to the industries which use tin. This is a very easy and cheap way. The Treasury will be able to help and encourage the development of further tin mining operations, particularly in Cornwall, and I think that this is one of the cases where the Treasury could be sympathetic. The Minister without Portfolio need not go back and look at various speeches that have been made in the past by right hon. and hon. Friends when similar Clauses have been moved by Sir Douglas Marshall and other of my right hon. Friends in the past. The conditions are different.
The Committee has been told how these conditions are different and I believe it is in the national interest, apart from the fact that it is also in the interests of Cornwall, that these mining operations should be given not only a safeguard but a certain amount of encouragement. The cost to the Treasury of this encouragement would be negligible.
I therefore hope that the Minister without Portfolio will be able to accept the principle underlying this Clause. Whether the wording is correct I do not think is

all that important. The Minister without Portfolio should be able to say he approves the principle underlying this and that he wishes to encourage tin mining in this country, particularly in Cornwall, and will do what he can to see it encouraged because it is in the national interest. If he does not he is saying that in his view and that of the Government the tin mining industry of this country is worthless and of no importance. I cannot believe the Treasury will say this and I cannot believe this is the right view.
I strongly support the new Clause.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: May I draw your attention Mr. Steele to the fact that there are fewer than 40 people present in the Chamber?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Thomas Steele): Not at this time in the evening.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard (St. Ives): In rising to support the new Clause which has been so ably proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I think that most of the hon. Gentlemen in the Committee will know that I have been trying to put forward the case of tin mines in Cornwall ever since I have been a Member of the House, for the last 15 years. I do not think that this is a party matter. If hon. Members turn to HANSARD of 21st June, 1961, c. 1514, they will see an extremely interesting and very good speech made by the Prime Minister in virtually exactly the same terms as those which have been used this afternoon and in which the right hon. Gentleman points out that this is not a party matter.
Reference has been made to Malaysia and Bolivia. I have always thought that from a defence point of view the proper encouragement of tin mining in Cornwall is not only necessary, but essential. We cannot rely on sources outside this country as much as we have done in the past, and it is only prudent that we should do everyhing we can to help the industry.
There is the question of employment. There are those who say, "That is ridiculous. All the present miners are foreign workers". I have one of the two existing tin mines in my constituency, at Geevor. The Cornish miners would come back to


Cornwall if they felt that there was a future in this great industry, and I am sure that they would encourage their sons to go into the industry if they thought that there was a future in it and that things would improve.
The attendance on the benches opposite is very thin, but there is one hon. Member opposite who I know would be here if he could and that is the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman). [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] He takes a great interest in this matter. After all, his constituency is very much concerned with it. I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members when I say how sad we are that he is not able to intervene in this debate. I am sure that if he could do so he would support everything that we have said.
One thing which I dare say the hon. Gentleman would wish to inquire into is the future of the Camborne School of Mines. I wonder whether the Minister who is to reply can tell me anything about that.

The Temporary Chairman: He would be out of order if he did.

Mr. Howard: I cannot develop the point, except to say that if the school should be moved it would be a very bad decision.
I commend to the attention of hon. Members on both sides other than Members who represent Cornish constituencies who have all read it the excellent annual report of the Cornish Mining Development Association for the year 1964–65. I should like to make one or two quotations from it, because it is well worth the Committee's attention. The first quotation reads:
It is probably true to say that Cornwall has never before been subjected to such a patient, systematic and scientific investigation as is now being undertaken.
I know this only too well, because within less than 500 yards of where I live in Cornwall, near Marazion, there have been two test drillings. I should say that within a radius of half-a-mile there are no fewer than three test drillings.
Important firms like the Union Corporation and the Siamese Tin Syndicate are starting diamond drilling in Scorrier and Redruth, around Troon and over a wide area between Marazion and Crowan.

These are all near where I live. Camborne Tin Ltd. has applied for permission to reopen Wheal Vor. Unfortunately, this application is held up owing to a dispute about water. You, Mr. Steele, would rule me out of order if I went into that matter.
Canadian interests are interested in the constituency of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne where shaft sinking and underground developments are about to begin. Rhodesia-Katanga, Kleinwort Benson and Canadian Westfield Minerals have formed a company to examine the extension of certain lodes.
If hon. Members care to read this excellent document, they will see that there is real interest in the mining industry. I should like to draw attention to page 2 of it where Dr. James McDivitt—not the gentleman who went for a stroll in space, but an eminent American geologist has been investigating mineral exploration in Europe—says:
Great Britain would seem to have the best developed negative attitude towards metal mining of the O.E.E.C. countries … Britain with its long history of mineral production and its very small present production would be one of the countries most likely to be rewarded by a thorough systematic reappraisal of its mineral resources, but the stitmulus seems to be lacking …
and so the document continues.
A debate on tin was recently initiated in another place. The answer of the Government spokesman was this:
I believe, however, that it would be entirely unrealistic to suppose that Cornish tin can ever make more than a very limited contribution to total home supplies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th March, 1965; Vol. 264, c. 482.]
Really! Is that the attitude of a Government who say that they want to encourage home industry and employment? As my hon. Friends have said, what we propose would cost the Treasury nothing. The Government's view is most extraordinary.
The Cornish Mining Development Association's Annual Report states:
Nothing less than the three year 'tax holiday' advocated by the Prime Minister, which is already granted by the Governments of Canada and Eire
will be any good.
Our own Government claims that it has given adequate relief to Cornish tin mining, but can it show that such relief even nearly approaches that which Canada, Eire, U.S.A., Australia, Rhodesia and South Africa
have given?
The most important quotation is this:
The mining companies are obviously doing the preliminary work in the hope that reason will prevail and that Britain will fall in line with other countries and adopt a more realistic attitude towards the taxation of the industry. If that hope is falsified the companies concerned may well decide to cut their losses and abandon the whole thing rather than risk very great sums of capital on shaft sinking and underground exploration, which is where the really heavy expenditure is involved, but which must follow the present drilling if new mines are to be brought into production".
Surely this shows the Government how important the tin mining industry is. I know that at times it takes us a long time to get anything done. We have had some realisation and concessions on this matter, but I beg the Government to take into consideration what this new Clause means and to do something to help the mining industry and employment in this area where it is badly needed.

Mr. Peter Bessell: Everyone in the West Country is, I think, very much indebted to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and to his hon. Friends for tabling this very important new Clause.
I should like to take this opportunity of paying a special tribute to my predecessor, Sir Douglas Marshall, who throughout his career in the House of Commons advocated reform of this kind and spared no effort to try to persuade successive Chancellors of the Exchequer to give special consideration to the needs of Cornwall in this respect.
It is true, as we have heard, that there is a world shortage of tin. It is also true that a great deal of interest is being shown in mining in Cornwall—a much greater interest than at any other time over the last 40 years. I know from discussions which I have had with at least one major international mining company that it would be prepared to make a considerable investment in Cornish tin if it could have the kind of tax concession which has been granted in similar circumstances by Governments of other countries.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) has mentioned that the Prime Minister has always been consistent in supporting this kind of Amendment to the Finance Bill. It is difficult for me to believe that the Minister with-

out Portfolio can do other than accede to the request which we are making from this side of the Committee. Indeed, if he does not, it will be said that the words spoken by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in years past were meaningless and without sincerity.
We have heard, too, from the Government a great deal about their intention to encourage regional development. I and, I think, everyone on this side of the Committee are anxious to see this promise implemented. One of the ways in which regional development in Cornwall can be encouraged is by assisting the tin-mining industry to get back on its feet. There is nothing better than encouraging the industries which are indigenous to any part of the country. Indeed, some of us who are anxious to ensure that industrial development in Cornwall is not unsightly would particularly welcome any encouragement to the redevelopment of mining.
There is, moreover, the question of the economy generally. Anything which can be produced in this country, thus helping to reduce our total import bill, is a matter which demands the first attention of the Government. They have a profound duty to make certain that no avenue is left unexplored which can assist us in reducing the raw materials which we otherwise have to import.
I do not propose to delay the Committee at length, because the points which have already been made so admirably by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson), the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) and the hon. Member for St. Ives do not need repetition. The case is clear. We have every right to expect that in view of past promises and the real need of development in the South-West, and particularly in view of the world shortage of tin, we shall have a favourable response from the Minister.

7.45 p.m.

Sir Eric Fletcher: The case for the new Clause has been forcibly and persuasively put by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and it has been equally cogently supported by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson), the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard)


and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), who has just spoken from the Liberal benches.
As has been said, I am sure that if my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) were with us today he would have spoken in the same sense, because, as we all know, this is a matter which is of the greatest interest to his constituents. The Committee will be glad to know that the latest reports which I have had about my hon. Friend are that he is making a good recovery, so much so that I am told that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is almost complaining of the large number of letters that it is receiving from him about the housing problems of his constituents.
Like other hon. Members, I have always been interested in the County of Cornwall and I am familiar with some of the disused Cornish tin mines. We all know that tin has been mined in Cornwall since Roman times and of the importance attaching to a revival of the Cornish tin mines. The hon. Member has pointed out that the Cornish tin mines became disused because it was uneconomic to work them and he has pointed out that the difficulties in getting supplies of tin abroad are increasing owing to international developments.
To make a case for the new Clause, it is necessary to show that this novel procedure of a tax holiday is required as a stimulant to encourage companies to undertake fresh tin mining operations in Cornwall. As hon. Members have pointed out, this matter has been debated in the House of Commons on previous occasions and there was a recent debate in another place when my noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade spoke on the subject. Since then, the position has been carefully reviewed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I am afraid that I must disappoint hon. Members opposite. My right hon. Friend has come to the conclusion that the existing allowances are fully adequate to give potential developers of tin mines in Cornwall all the encouragement and assistance that is required to enable them to undertake operations there.
Not only will anybody undertaking tin mining operations in Cornwall be entitled

to the generous initial and annual investment allowances, but in addition, Cornwall being in a development district, any development of a Cornish tin mine will get the free depreciation which has been available since 1963. The result is that, in all probability, anybody undertaking operations in Cornwall would find that in view of these allowances, including depreciation allowance, there would in any event be very little tax to pay during the first three years.
One hon. Member suggested that this concession would not cost the Treasury anything. If no profits are made, no tax would be payable. The initial allowances, the investment allowances and the depreciation allowances as now available to mining developers are in themselves, however, considerable taxation attractions and should, in our view, be quite sufficient to justify any prospective developer in undertaking the development of Cornish tin mines or any of the other operations that would be covered by the Clause.
In saying that, I do not want hon. Members to think that we are in any way unsympathetic or wish to discourage tin-mining operations in Cornwall or elsewhere in the South-West, but we wish to emphasise the great tax concessions which at present exist. It does not seem to us that the special case of the Cornish tin mines is sufficient to justify an entirely novel departure in our tax system for which there is no precedent.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: When the hon. Gentleman says "we", does he include the Prime Minister? Will he explain the grounds on which his right hon. Friend has completely changed from speaking for the equivalent of 13 columns of HANSARD in advocating an equally specific new Clause with only one difference, Corporation Tax instead of Profits Tax? Surely, we are entitled to know why the First Lord of the Treasury has completely changed his mind. We have not had one word of explanation from the Treasury Bench.

Sir Eric Fletcher: The Prime Minister is a member of the Government, and on this occasion I speak for the Government. I am familiar with what my right hon. Friend said during the debate to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but since then there has been a notable change in the situation in that the industry will


benefit from the increase from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. in the investment allowances for capital expenditure on new plant and machinery and on the construction of mining works.
Therefore, there are additional taxation advantages available now over and above what were available when my right hon. Friend made the statement to which reference has been made.

Mr. William Clark: I am sure that the Committee is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) for having moved the new Clause in such reasonable terms. His résumé of the position, both internationally and at home, was extremely good and fair, and I do not think that anybody can be in any doubt as to the position of the tin mining industry and the potentiality of that industry in Cornwall.
I am sure that the Committee is delighted to hear the news about the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman). We look forward to seeing him back in his place as soon as he has fully recovered, because he has always shown a great interest in this matter, as has my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard), who, like the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, has one of the Cornish tin mines in his constituency and is aware of the various problems, and in fact the potentiality, of the industry.
I think that my hon. Friend made a valid point when he said that more and more people would be brought back to the mines if additional incentives were provided. What my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton is asking for in the new Clause is a three-year tax holiday. The Minister is right when he says that if no profits are made one can hardly give a tax holiday. We knew that before we started the debate.
The Minister has not answered the point about the world shortage of tin to which the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) referred in his interesting speech. There is a world shortage of this commodity and there is uncertainty about the situation in Malaysia and Bolivia. There is uncertainty throughout the whole of our sources of supply of this non-ferrous

metal. I think that the Minister might have said something about that, just as he might have said something about the saving in foreign currency which would result from increasing production in this country.
As one of my hon. Friends pointed out, when this matter was last debated the cost of tin was about £880 per ton. Today, it is £1,459. There has been a tremendous jump in the price, and this leads to two conclusions: first, that there is uncertainty in the international tin markets; and, secondly, that production is less than demand. This is why there is so much force in the argument that we should do everything possible to encourage the production of this nonferrous metal, and the only way in which we can do it in a Finance Bill is by fiscal methods. Many other countries provide concessions for tin mining. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives who brought out this point.
The Minister made great play of the tremendous success achieved by the last Conservative Administration with regard to investment and free depreciation allowances, but I thought that he was a little ungenerous in not paying tribute to the previous Administration by pointing out that these allowances had been of immense benefit not only to mining concerns, but to industry generally throughout the country. We accept that the tin mining industry has been helped, but what the Minister did not say was that since 1964, since the Labour Government came into power, and under the provisions of this Finance Bill, these incentives have been devalued and depreciated to a considerable extent because of the imposition of Corporation Tax.
It is not my intention to go over the debate that we had on that very important subject. Suffice it to say that everybody in the country—and certainly hon. Members on these benches—is concerned about the fact that the imposition of Corporation Tax has devalued the effect of the investment allowances. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) was right when he pointed out that the position now, from a tax point of view, was worse than it was before the Government came to power. Corporation Tax will devalue investment allowances, and my hon.


Friend the Member for Tiverton is trying to restore the incentives to the tin mining industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson), who has played a considerable part in debates on the tin mining industry, pointed out how essential it was that we should do nothing to harm this industry, and that, in fact, we should do as much as we can to help it. What the Minister does not realise is that if one is trying to help an industry, and particularly this industry, one has to remember that its investment potential is the spur to make people put their money into it. Unfortunately, Corporation Tax does not provide this incentive and that is why my hon. Friend is seeking to restore the incentive which was provided before the imposition of this new tax.
Corporation Tax will deter participators from investing not only in the tin mining industry, but in any other industry. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, large sums of money are required for exploration. The tin comes in lodes and not in veins, which means that several test drillings are required. It is an extremely expensive business, and this is all the more reason why this industry, with its high capital content, should be encouraged rather than penalised.
Many of my hon. Friends have referred to the debate which we had in 1961 on this subject. Since then the Conservative Government have helped every industry in the country by increasing investment allowances, and in many cases allowing free depreciation. I am certain that the imposition of Corporation Tax will to a large extent mitigate against the increased benefits provided by the previous Administration.
As has been pointed out, in 1961 the Prime Minister—he was then the Leader of the Opposition—not only moved a new Clause dealing with this subject, but withdrew it, and on Report the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) moved a new Clause on the subject and went into the Lobby in support of it, as did the Prime Minister. In fact, the Minister without Portfolio also went into the Lobby to support it, and all that we are asking him to do is to tell us why he is being so inconsistent. It is

no good him saying that he is inconsistent because in the last 13 years the Conservative Administration did so much for the tin mining industry, because since then the Socialists have decreased the tax benefits that were available.
As one of my hon. Friends said, this new Clause may not be correctly drafted, and we are grateful to the Minister for not sheltering behind that excuse. He was quite frank in his reply. He said that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor had looked at this. He said nothing about consistency, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North, who said that if the Minister does not accept the new Clause people outside, and particularly the people in Cornwall, will know that the Government are indifferent to the pleas for help for the tin mining industry. Not only that: they will realise, as they will in many other respects, that the word of the Government, given when they were in opposition, still cannot be trusted.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I hope that the Minister will reconsider the position. His argument was the most inconsistent that we have had. I ask him to consider the matter again. My hon. Friends have pointed out quite clearly the way in which the situation has changed since the speech of the Prime Minister's which has been referred to. They have changed for the worse under this Government. The Government's proposals have had no beneficial effect on this industry, although hon. Members opposite have said that they wish it to be put upon a sound economic basis.
It is disgraceful for the hon. Member to say that he is bearing in mind the present situation. I can assure him that we have local knowledge of what goes on in Cornwall. We know the difficulties that the industry is facing. We know how difficult it is for companies who want to open up existing mines. It is a costly business. The existing tax reliefs are being eroded by the Government and the result has been bad.
I am sorry that the hon. Member has had to repudiate the case put forward by the Prime Minister in 1961. It can properly be argued that the situation for the industry is getting even worse than it was


because of the action taken by the Government.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: This is obviously the moment of truth—the moment of public disgrace for the Prime Minister, with only two of his own back benchers present to hear about it. His Front Bench denies the proposition that the Prime Minister advanced, in 13 columns of HANSARD, on 21st June, 1961. As the hon. Member said, the right hon Gentleman is Prime Minister now. Does that mean that he does not believe what he said at the time, or is it the proposition that the Prime Minister spent 13 columns of HANSARD in 1961 merely in asking for another 10 per cent. allowance?
Not one proposition advanced in favour of the new Clause has been denied by the hon. Gentleman. He has not denied that not one new tin mine has been opened since the Clause was first put forward. He has not denied that it would not cost the Treasury any existing revenue. He has not asserted that the remedial measures taken by the Conservative Government have not been effective. The propositions put forward by the Prime Minister in 1961 are as true today as they were then. Why is it that the Government benches are empty at the time of the disgrace of their own Prime Minister by the Government Front Bench? It is an extraordinary thing that no answer to the debate should have been put up.
There may be good reasons why the Prime Minister has decided that the case that he put forward so cogently in 1961 is no longer true, but is not the Committee entitled to know what those reasons are? Is it not entitled to have the debate answered by the Government? Is it to be assumed that when the right hon. Gentleman who is now Prime Minister was in opposition, he could put forward with all the force at his command a series of arguments, but that when he came to office he could ignore them without offering any explanation, except to say that the Conservative Government increased the tax allowance by 10 per cent.?
What is the justification for claiming that all is now well as a result of a 10 per cent. allowance? We have not had a word of justification. All that we are

invited to do is to believe that all will be well, because there is a Simon de Montfort party on at the moment. That is the implicit argument put forward by the Treasury Ministers, and it is a poor one.

Mr. Bessell: I am sorry to take up further time of the Committee, but I must add my voice of protest to those which have already been raised. What does the Prime Minister's word mean? How is it possible for him, when in opposition, to advocate a course of action which is today being disavowed by his own Front Bench? This is something which will not be forgotten in Cornwall, and I assure the hon. Member that it will not be forgiven, either.
It is not surprising that the Government's party lost two of their deposits in Cornwall in the last General Election—one in my constituency and the other in North Cornwall. The reaction to today's announcement could conceivably result in further lost deposits for the Labour Party in Cornwall at the next election.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause.—(RELIEF FOR BLIND PERSONS.)

Notwithstanding anything in section 9 of the Finance Act, 1962 (which provides that claimants must prove that they were registered blind persons throughout the year), relief may be claimed under that section by blind persons in respect of periods for which they were registered of less than one year, and relief for such periods shall be granted at a rate proportionate to the rate for a whole year.—[Mr. Dean.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Dean: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Grant-Ferris): It will be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss at the same time—
New Clause No. 20—"Relief for disabled persons",
New Clause No. 54—"Constant attendant allowance",
New Clause No. 56—"Attendance allowance for incapacitated wife or husband",
New Clause No. 61—"Dependent relative attendance relief", and
New Clause No. 52—"Claimant depending on services of daughter".

Mr. Heath: I believe it has been agreed that we should have the right to Divisions on Clauses Nos. 19, 52 and 61.

The Temporary Chairman: That is quite correct.

Mr. Dean: I propose to restrict my remarks entirely to this Clause, although I am in agreement with many of the points covered by the other Clauses. This is a very modest proposal, designed to help a certain number of our fellow countrymen who are shining examples of courage in disability, namely, the blind. The intention of the Clause is simply to enable blind people to get the special tax relief which is available to them as soon as they are registered as blind. I would remind the Committee of the history of this special tax relief. It was introduced in the Finance Act, 1962, as a special relief for blind people. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) is one of those who for many years had been urging that this relief should be introduced.
Apart from the details, the effect of the relief introduced at that time is that a registered blind person is eligible to a maximum of £100 tax relief, provided that he is not getting the £40 daughter allowance or the social security disability benefits as a blind person. That means that the full amount is available only where a blind person is not getting help in some other way. But another condition attached to this relief in 1962. This is the one with which this Clause is concerned—that, in order to get this relief, a blind person has to be registered as blind at the beginning of the Income Tax year. If he is registered on the second day no allowance is available until the following year.
It is clear from experience that this limitation has caused a good deal of dissatisfaction and resentment. I know from correspondence and from experience of organisations such as the Royal National Institute for the Blind that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction over the time some blind people have to wait before they become eligible for this relief. It is immensely important that cash or tax allowances for people suffering from disability should be available as soon as the disability is established. The present limitation contrasts strangely with the marriage allowance,

which can be claimed for the whole year in which marriage takes place, even if it takes place on the last day of the Income Tax year.
8.15 p.m.
I am not asking the Government to go even as far as that. I merely propose that tax relief should operate from the day of registration and that there should be proportionate relief for the rest of that tax year. Of course, if the Financial Secretary accepts the case and decides to go further and put this relief on all fours with the marriage allowance, naturally I shall be delighted. I and my hon. Friends have deliberately put forward a modest proposal in the belief that the Government will find it exceedingly difficult to reject it. What objections could there be to this modest proposal? There can be no objection in principle, because the principle was established and accepted in 1962. It is established and it is working. I believe, too, that there can be no objection on the grounds of cost, because the Financial Secretary has already informed me that the cost of this proposal would be minimal.
Can there be any objection from the point of view of administration? I understand that this relief has caused virtually no difficulty in administration. It may well be that, when the relief was introduced in 1962, the Treasury felt that this new relief meant moving into uncharted waters and that it would be wise, in the first instance, to limit it in this way, so as to see how it worked in practice. There have been no difficulties in administration. The relief has worked smoothly. So, on those three grounds—on principle, on grounds of cost and on grounds of administration—I believe that there are no difficulties involved in accepting this new Clause.
How many people are likely to be involved? It is difficult to say, but we know that about 12,000 people are added to the blind register each year. Of course, we do not know how many of that total in any one year would be eligible for this relief. There is no doubt that some of them would be ineligible because they are in receipt of a disability benefit of some description or of the special rate of National Assistance. I think it is reasonable to assume that a substantial number of those 12,000 people each year


would be eligible and would benefit from these new arrangements.
Who are these people? Undoubtedly, many of them are old. We all know that this is a familiar factor, that blindness very often comes with age. I know of one example of a married couple. The wife is over 90 years of age and her husband is also very old. She is completely blind and he is very nearly blind. The husband applied for this relief for his wife and it happened to be in the middle of the Income Tax year. Hon. Members can imagine this man's feelings when he had a letter from the Inland Revenue saying, "I am very sorry but you will have to wait until the beginning"—

Mr. J. B. Symonds: The hon. Member said that a blind lady, 90 years of age, and her husband were claiming relief. Does he expect that a blind person would be working at the age of 90?

Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the purport of what I am saying. There is no question of people having to work to be eligible under this Clause. It applies irrespective of whether the people concerned are at work or not. There is no doubt in my mind that a substantial number of people who benefit now from the special tax relief for blind people and who would benefit under the new Clauses are very elderly people living on comparatively modest incomes, but, nonetheless, coming within the provisions of the Clause.
I am sure that this is the case, but if this Clause has not been drafted to that effect, that is certainly the intention. I hope that the Financial Secretary understands—

Mr. Symonds: That is a different matter altogether.

Mr. Dean: Coming back to my example, this is a concrete case. The husband is elderly, he is nearly 90 and nearly blind. The wife is over 90 and is completely blind. He applied on her behalf for this special relief and he was told by the Inland Revenue that they were extremely sorry, but there could be no tax relief until the beginning of the next Income Tax year. This is the law as it stands at the moment. I have the letter dealing with this case here from the local

tax office, which states the position. Hon. Members can imagine how that man felt when he received that letter. It is one example of many I could quote to show the difficulties and restrictions of the present relief.
Some people who become blind are younger, the sort of people the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds) had in mind, and—

Mr. Symonds: On a point of order. I was not referring to the younger generation but to the fact that the hon. Gentleman has said that the gentleman to whom he was referring was working.

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Dean: Younger people would benefit from the new Clause.

Mr. A. P. Costain: It would appear that certain hon. Gentlemen opposite do not understand what this is all about. Would my hon. Friend explain exactly how the present relief operates?

Mr. Dean: I believe that my hon. Friends understand the object of the new Clause and, for the benefit of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I emphasise again that the intention of the special relief which now exists is not limited to whether or not a person is capable of employment. It is available for all, whether people are retired or employed. In precisely the same way, the modest extension which I propose in the new Clause would benefit people who are within this category, whether they are working or retired.
As I was saying, some of these people are young and working. Many of them are involved in the expense and difficulty of reshaping their lives for a new type of employment. Are not these people, young or old, deserving of this special allowance and should it not be made available to them as speedily as possible, without them having to wait until the next Income Tax year? I hope that I have succeeded in softening the heart of the Treasury Bench and that my proposal will be regarded as practical and workable.

Dame Joan Vickers: I have much pleasure in supporting the new Clause, particularly since this matter has an extremely long history. It began in 1939. I was fortunate enough to be one of those who in 1962 took up


this cause and was lucky enough, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke) was in office, to persuade him to give considerable help in the form of the Income Tax relief which now exists. However, I must have overlooked the important point to which this Clause draws attention.
I wish to consider mainly the younger person who goes blind. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) pointed out, these people have many additional expenses, particularly when they go blind in their younger years. They are very self-respecting people who want to continue to earn their own living and in many cases support their own families.
We are speaking of a discernible category of people, for when they are stricken with blindness we know that they come into a definite category—there are all the tests to judge by and, unfortunately, we also know that the majority of them are unlikely to get rid of their disability. When they first become blind and wish to continue working they have a great many additional expenses.
That is one reason why I hope that the Minister will consider this request favourably. They need assistance and, to enable them to get about, they must often take taxis. Sometimes they must acquire a guide dog, the maintenance of which is an expensive item. The beginning of blindness is the most expensive time of their lives. That is why my hon. Friends and I hope that the Treasury will allow them to obtain this relief at the earliest possible moment, particularly during this difficult initial period.
From having led normal lives—from being able to see and be independent—they regrettably have to be dependent on many others. They have great courage, particularly when they are anxious to continue to earn a livelihood. Many of these people wish to be self-supporting and not be on State relief. I come into contact with a great many of them in my work with the blind and I am aware of the excellent work they do in many professions and the high standards they attain.
As I say, they have great courage, they do not want to be dependent on others. For this reason, particularly at the beginning of blindness, they must perhaps

put their hands in their pockets more than they would otherwise have to do. It is occasionally necessary to offer people some remuneration for the help they give. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will see his way to giving this small concession, which would be of great help, out of all proportion to the cost, to this section of the population.

Dame Irene Ward: The new Clauses with which we are dealing and which are supported by my hon. Friends deal specifically with disablement, old-age or with those who, in the course of their active lives, are bearing the effort of trying to help to maintain disabled and elderly people in their own homes. It is a wide series of new Clauses and I regret that in our discussion of the Bill we have had very little opportunity to discuss the problems which arise. I am, therefore, glad that so many of the new Clauses with which we are dealing are concerned with these problems.
New Clause No. 20 is rather long, so I will not read it to the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought that it would be more helpful if I made my case rather than read the terms of that new Clause. I hope that we shall have a promise of some action over some of these new Clauses, and will not have the announcement that has been made ever since the present Government took office in October last that all these matters are under review.
8.30 p.m.
I fully realise that in sound and good government proper attention must be paid to all details and aspects of what might be called the social service angle, but we on this side will not be satisfied unless we hear from the Treasury bench that there is to be some immediate general action. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite know a great deal about these matters and made a great many promises during the election campaign, but the people concerned, particularly the elderly and those suffering disablement, are getting very tired—

Mr. Robert Cooke: I beg to call your attention, Mr. Grant-Ferris, to the fact that fewer than 40 Members appear to be present.

Committee counted, and, 40 Members being present—

8.31 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I do not like to criticise members of my own side, Mr. Grant-Ferris, but I sometimes wish that they would exercise a little common sense. There could not have been a more inconvenient or unhappy moment to call a count—[HON. MEMBERS: "Well spoken."]—and if my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), who is rather new to the House, would like to ask me afterwards, I will give him a very good lesson on Parliamentary procedure—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Lady must not make those remarks in that sense. The hon. Member was within his rights to call a Count.

Dame Irene Ward: I can still say that people are stupid. If we cannot say in this Chamber that people are stupid, we had better make some new Standing Orders.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Would not the hon. Lady agree that her hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) is actually making a reflection on her own side of the Committee? We have had 150 hours of debate—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I have already ruled that all this is quite out of order. I have called the hon. Lady, and I hope that she will continue with her speech.

Dame Irene Ward: The hon. Lady is delighted to continue.
I am trying to emphasise that we expect from the Treasury Bench an indication of some action; and that we shall not be satisfied with the usual statement that the whole matter is under review.
This Clause is an exact replica of one moved by hon. and right hon. Members opposite when in opposition, and I asume that they must have known the details of what their own new Clause meant. There would, therefore, appear to be no reason to spend any time at all in considering the details of the Clause. This Clause follows on new Clauses in the names of my hon. Friends for giving special relief to blind persons and to disabled persons.
I would not like anybody in the Committee to think that I have always been satisfied with my own party when it has been the Government of the day. Fortunately, however, one is able to express one's views, and I must say that the Conservative Party did a great many very good and very sound things. Nevertheless, I always like people to get on rather more quickly in these matters, so I thought it most suitable to table a new Clause in exactly the same terms as were used by the present Government when in Opposition during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill in 1963.
I hope that that fact will be appreciated. I have looked up the new Clause tabled at that time, and I find that it was supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, by the Financial Secretary and by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is a very important figure in these matters. I was also very glad to find that I had not voted against that Clause. I say this because, naturally, under our procedure hon. Members opposite will shortly call attention to the fact that the Clause was rejected by my Government when we were in office. I am not a cynic about Parliament, and Parliamentary procedure.
Although there were some complications about such a Clause, hon. Members opposite have had lots of time, in view of "poised ready for action" at the time of the last General Election, to look at this proposal and its implications and to work out the details. I do not think that this Clause could possibly upset the structure of the new social services which are designed to help disabled persons, which we hope the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will produce very soon. The Government are absolutely committed to this Clause and I am delighted to know that they are. I therefore hope for a favourable reply.
I turn to new Clause No. 61, which stands in my name. That takes an entirely new line in social service. It is designed particularly to help those who make themselves responsible in a magnificent way and in the best traditions of the people of this country for elderly parents and other relatives whom they support in their own homes. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are interested in giving the disabled and


the old the very best service we can afford. This Clause is not quite so lengthy so I shall read it. It says:
A single person maintaining in her or his home…".
Notice that I am not being pro-feminine; I am all out for everybody
a dependent relative or relatives unable through age or disablement to obtain employment and in receipt of a war disablement pension, industrial injury pension, retirement pension or National Assistance shall receive an attendance tax relief, in addition to the dependent relative's tax relief, of £50 in respect of each relative".
Hon. Members opposite may ask why the Clause opens with the words, "A single person". The word "single" may mean a widow, a widower, a deserted wife, a deserted husband, or a divorced person left to maintain a home and looking after a relative.
I introduce the word "single" because this Clause arises from the work of the Council for Single Women, which was started by a very remarkable woman, the Rev. Mary Webster, who is known to many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. It has also had magnificent support from the Woolwich Council of Social Service. This Clause arises out of a great deal of the work done by the Rev. Mary Webster and I wanted to link it with the Council for Single Women so that everyone who reads Hansard, and is interested in this debate, will realise that the Clause is a result of the initiative of the Rev. Mary Webster and all who have gallantly supported her.
The object of new Clause No. 61 is to try to relieve the position of those who maintain in their own homes relative suffering from old age or injury of one kind or another. Everyone will agree that little has been done for these people. These people, whether they be single women, single men or widows, have few people to speak for them. Sometimes Parliament pays far too much attention to pressure groups. It should consider the magnificent work done by many citizens out of affection, responsibility and reliability. By undertaking the maintenance of relatives, providing them with a home, working for them and caring for them, they take a great burden off the State.
I have been, as have several of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite, to

successive Chancellors of the Exchequer and to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to discuss the special problems of these people. One of the things the Rev. Mary Webster asserts is that there has been far too little research into this matter. The many members of the Woolwich Council of Social Services have done valiant work in studying the problems of women who go out to work and maintain their homes and provide homes for their parents and relatives. In a country which prides itself on having a good social service system, it is alarming to discover how little is known about the problem of these people who are maintained by their relatives.
That is the reason for new Clause No. 61. It may not be couched in perfect terms. I always say that in Parliament it takes 10 years to win a battle. The Rev. Mary Webster and those who support her have gone so far that we can eliminate 10 years and come down to today. I hope that we shall receive a satisfactory answer. I am sure that Ministers are keenly interested in this matter.
The time has come to make a beginning. When people go out to work and earn, very often, a good income, the problem of having elderly relatives in the house is not just a matter of money. Old people cannot be left alone for the duration of an average day's work, unless they are able to look after themselves and are really responsible. Some constant attendance relief should be given, because the responsible women who support the Rev. Mary Webster know only too well that, if they leave a half-blind mother or father in a house, anything could happen. The breadwinner therefore has a nagging anxiety during the whole of the working day. This problem should be looked at. This is why we have tabled the Clause.
8.45 p.m.
We all pay a warm tribute to the Rev. Mary Webster. I have heard her address nurses' and midwives' conferences and meetings of health visitors. All these people, who know a great deal about the life of the people, agree that some action should be taken to help those who are prepared to find homes for their parents or dependent relatives. One of my complaints about all Governments is that there seems to be far too


little co-ordination between one Government Department and another. I am not at all certain that the Financial Secretary will not be saying that this is a matter of tax relief and of finding extra money and that he will be involved only with the Treasury.
I asked recently, because I thought that it was important, what was the cost of maintaining people in Part III accommodation, which has been so admirably developed and run under Conservative administration as I am sure it will be by the present Administration. There are also under the National Health Service many people who are chronically unable to look after themselves and who are maintained in hospital. I therefore put down two Parliamentary Questions so that I would be able to spike the hon. and learned Gentleman's guns if he started to talk about money. I do not imagine that with all the work that the Treasury has had to do on a highly complicated Finance Bill anyone has thought to inquire of the Ministry of Health what these costs would be. It is true that the totality of cost cannot be judged, because, as the Rev. Mary Webster has rightly pointed out, so little field work has been done on this matter.
I asked the Minister of Health what was the cost of maintaining an individual in a geriatric ward, though I should not have referred to geriatric ward, but to a hospital for the chronic sick. The cost is about £780 a year. I also asked the cost of Part III accommodation. This is £450 a year. There is far too little Part III accommodation and far too few beds in general hospitals for looking after the elderly sick.
The new Clause is, therefore, linked with the responsibilities of the Minister of Health. It is a most distressing and disturbing feature of our debates on the Finance Bill that it is always the Treasury's representatives who are involved and I am not all that fond of some of them. I should like to see a few more of the other Ministers arrive on the scene.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Give them a chance.

Dame Irene Ward: I am always willing to give everybody a chance provided that I have the right answer in the end.
The only other new Clause I mention is No. 52. This did not come from me at all and, indeed, I was hoping that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) would move it because she feels, as all women feel, that, somehow or other, the interests which we put forward nearly always come at the bottom of any Cabinet Minister's priority list. I am very glad that there is so much support for the new Clauses which we are putting forward.
There has been no improvement of Income Tax relief for daughters who maintain dependent relatives, and the purpose of the Clause is to raise the allowance to £100 per annum. That would go a nice long way towards helping these daughters who accept responsibility for dependent relatives. I know of many cases, and I quote just one from my own constituency, of a daughter in a good job who was earning a very good salary and whose mother was mentally incapacitated. This daughter had to give up her own job and spend her savings in order to maintain her National Insurance contribution. There are thousands of such cases which could be cited in support of the new Clause.
To accept this Clause would be to give a small further tax relief, the Treasury having already bumped up the tax relief in respect of dependent relatives. It would not take a great deal to arrange for it. We all much admire the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and he would not have to take a long time to examine the implications of a new Clause like this, although the Government, not really knowing much about daughters or about people who do not work through pressure groups, tend to forget the people about whom we on this side are concerned and on whose behalf we accept an obligation to press their case.
This new Clause will be moved formally by one of my right hon. Friends, so we shall have a man coming to the support of women, which is a very good thing in this very good work. The Financial Secretary will be very glad that we have thought out these new Clauses and he will, I am sure, think it a great pity that they were not embodied in the original Bill. I quite understand that, with all the complications of the new tax structure which the Treasury Ministers have had to worry about, the question


of giving help to these unfortunate people, who bear extra responsibilities willingly, gladly and appreciatively, has been overlooked. But this is the business of the House of Commons, and I am very proud to have the honour of supporting all these new Clauses, and I am looking forward to a first-class speech from the hon. and learned Gentleman when he tells us that he accepts the lot.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I support everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward), but I shall concentrate on the narrow question of the constant attendance allowance for certain categories of people. Various allowances and concessions have been given over the years, but they have been extracted from the Government in individual Finance Bills and there has been no set plan, with the result that certain categories of people are treated differently from others with quite minor differences in personal circumstances and some grave injustices have arisen.
I shall mention a case which has been put before the House before. My brother first raised it in 1947 when he was Member for Edinburgh, West. He fought the case many times, and I have been fighting it since because the lady in question now lives in my constituency. It is an interesting case and will show where the injustices occur.
The lady in question suffered a terrible back injury in a motor smash in 1939. She is paralysed from the waist down and has to use an invalid chair. She is 100 per cent. disabled and unable to obtain regular employment. She lives on an annuity purchased with the damages awarded at the time of the smash, but, of course, the income is much less than it was in 1939 or 1940. Money values have fallen and taxes, prices, rates and household charges have gone up.
This lady has to employ a full-time resident housekeeper. At the time of the injury she was not covered by National Insurance. She is entitled to no disability benefit, no pension and no allowances. She is unable to get any tax relief to meet her housekeeper's wages. Hon. Members will agree that this is most unfortunate—indeed, scandalous—when we consider our fairly good social arrangements today.
I underline the unfairness of the case because widows and widowers, whether disabled or not, may claim a £75 a year tax-free allowance for resident housekeepers. Bachelors and spinsters cannot do so, even if disabled. Furthermore, those injured as a result of an accident in industry can have an allowance. The blind have special concessions and people injured as a result of service in the armed forces can also claim attendant allowance. But for the ordinary civilian, such as the lady whose case I have mentioned, there is nothing.
In 1954 the Royal Commission recommended a minimum tax relief of £100 a year for disabled people generally. Today, I would think, that figure should be £200. Treasury Ministers have, by and large, not accepted the Royal Commission's recommendation because there is always a fear of opening the gates to further categories of claimants. But why on earth should a non-disabled widow receive an allowance for a resident housekeeper when a disabled spinster cannot? How are the blind, who rightly get some concession, worse off than a spinster who has lost both legs and gets nothing?
It is clear that this matter needs looking into because there are injustices and the allowances should be extended. Ministers in the past have argued that it is difficult to assess total disability and they say that if someone who is 100 per cent. disabled gets the allowance why should not someone who is 90 per cent. cent. disabled get an allowance? This is a false argument. The Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance can quite well lay down rules about whether a person is 100 per cent. disabled or not, or it could list certain injuries, as the old Workmen's Compensation Acts did, and we must remember also that Service pensions are graded according to injuries.
Another argument put forward over the years to my brother and to me is that one cannot grant tax relief to someone who does not pay tax and that consequently what we asked for might work unfairly. I see the point of that, but a person who does not pay tax and who is poor and who is disabled in this way will be looked after in a State hospital or institution; but where a person has some money of his own and, although severely disabled, can live at home, it is


much better that he should do so. Medical evidence is quite emphatic on this point. I would have thought that an allowance in this sort of case of £200 a year would be fair. After all, the amount involved in keeping such a person in a State hospital would be about £30 a week or more.
9.0 p.m.
I have mentioned that earlier my brother battled on this case, and so did I. I took it up with Lord Amory when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and with other Unionist Chancellors, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling). There has always been resistance. Neither side has been forthcoming and I make no political point about that.
However, Mr. Grant-Ferris, if you study the Finance Bill Reports of 19th May, 1960, you will find that the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) supported a review and extension of this allowance and spoke along lines similar to those which I have followed. In the Finance Bill debate on 30th May, 1962, a new Clause, similar to this new Clause No. 20 and covering the same point, was supported by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
What clinches the matter for me most is a letter from the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison). My constituent wrote to her because she knew the right hon. Lady's interest in social matters and she received a reply dated 18th February, 1964, and saying:
I wish to thank you for your letter in which you enclosed a copy of the letter which you had sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 5th January, 1963.
In the Labour Party policy statement, 'New Frontiers for Social Security', you will find that we propose to give a constant attendance allowance to those who are chronically sick or disabled, since we feel that this will be of considerable help.
Best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Margaret Herbison.
I know that the right hon. Lady has a kind heart and is a fellow Scot, but she is also a very sensible person with long political experience. She has been Chairman of the Labour Party and in the last Parliament she was "shadow" Minister

of Pensions. I therefore regard her pledge as sufficient, and in view of these facts I ask that the constant attendance allowance be granted and put into the Bill and that the new Clause be accepted.

Lord Balniel: This series of new Clauses is designed to bring relief through tax allowances to a section of the community with which the whole Committee has enormous sympathy. They are designed to extend the tax relief available to blind persons and to bring tax relief to those who are technically described as being 100 per cent. disabled, which in normal language means persons who suffer from disabilities of quite incredible severity. I will confine my fairly limited remarks to the Clause moved by the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), the Clause which deals with tax allowance for the severely disabled.
I would like to echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport and of the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), who introduced this Clause in order to bring additional help to those who are already blind. In the Finance Act, 1962, my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport achieved a wonderful triumph on behalf of blind persons when she managed to get allowances for the blind incorporated into the Statute Book. She has now called attention to an aspect of these tax allowances which the whole Committee will agree is anomalous.
It is surely wrong, that when tax allowances are are available for blind persons they should not be available for the full period during which the blindness has been suffered. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to give a sympathetic answer and to try to amend the existing law in this respect.
I now turn to the Clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). She said that her experience was that it took ten years before one could achieve a reform in this place. This is certainly the experience so far as this Clause is concerned. Elementary research shows that a Clause very similar to this was moved by hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were on these benches in virtually every Finance Act during the period in which the Conservative Government was in office.


It was moved in 1954, 1956, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1964.
I sat as Parliamentary Private Secretary behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in some of these debates, and I realise that this Clause was resisted by the Government on the grounds of administrative inconvenience. But I am bound to point out that this Clause was moved with considerable passion by hon. Gentlemen year after year. They were not convinced by the arguments of administrative inconvenience advanced by the Treasury. They forced this Clause to a Division on almost every single occasion that it was brought before the Committee. Now they have the opportunity of turning the words they uttered sincerely and with real feeling and passion into action, which undoubtedly will bring great happiness to this section of the community which suffers afflictions which few of us can really appreciate.
There is general agreement that we should try to mould our tax structure, if it is at all possible, to bring relief to those who are afflicted. One accepts that there are degrees, and equally there is a very strong argument which recognises that if the Government are to bring help to the afflicted it is possibly preferable that help should be given directly in the way of social benefits rather than through the taxation structure. In 1952 the Conservative Administration made an important step towards moving the tax structure to bring help to the afflicted. In the 1952 Finance Act it amended the tax structure so that tax allowances are now available for the blind.
As has been said so often in the past on similar proposals, this new Clause is not advanced solely on the basis that we want to give rein to our generous impulses and help those less fortunate than ourselves. That is not the argument. The argument is that the severely disabled are, through their disability, involved in expenses greater than those of people who are not disabled.
May I give an example in my constituency which has been brought to my attention only in the last fortnight. A lady came to me who had moved into my constituency. Her son, who, incidentally, is not 100 per cent. disabled—he is less severely disabled than the people whom

we are trying to help by this new Clause—finds it almost impossible to move of his own volition. On coming to live in my constituency, this lady had to alter the structure of her house in Welwyn Garden City. She had to strengthen the ceilings so that chains could be attached to enable her son to life himself out of chairs or the bath. This involved an expenditure of £375, which was borne by the welfare authorities. There was no obligation on the welfare authorities to bear this expenditure on her behalf. There is no doubt that one could cite many other instances in which people who are severely disabled are involved in personal expenditure which is not met out of local authority funds.
It has already been mentioned how many severely disabled people have to pay for constant attendance. Surely it is rather anomalous that if one is in need of constant attendance because one is a war pensioner or has been injured in industry one gets a constant attendance grant, but that if one is in need of constant attendance through another form of injury no assistance is forthcoming.
I heard with interest the letter which was quoted written by the present Minister of Pensions and National Insurance giving a categorical pledge, I should have thought, that the Labour Government will introduce constant attendance allowances to help people in this situation.

Mr. MacDermot: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman heard my intervention, but the letter from which his hon. Friend quoted referred to something quite different from the subject under discussion. It referred, not to a tax allowance, but to a social security benefit.

Lord Balniel: All I can say is that if that is so I should have thought that every person in this community who heard that letter quoted felt that the Government were in honour bound to give some assistance. Already those who have been expecting social security benefits have had a very long wait indeed while the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is undertaking his review.

Dame Irene Ward: I have had a lot of correspondence from my hon. Friend's constituent. May I suggest that the


Minister of Pensions and National Insurance would most certainly have given the lady in question the whole story about the taxation relief for widows and widowers. Therefore, I was very surprised that the right hon. Lady did not have all the facts when she wrote in that way.

Lord Balniel: The Committee has had the opportunity of listening to a letter being read and of hearing the views of the Financial Secretary. I am perfectly content to leave judgment on this matter to the mood of the Committee.

Mr. MacDermot: It is not a question of my views. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance had to leave the Chamber. She told me that she was quoting from a pamphlet on Labour Party policy which was referred to in the letter. That pamphlet deals with social security policy and refers to a proposed benefit. Because the same phrase—"constant attendance allowance"—is used as is being used in the discussion on this new Clause, the hon. Gentleman, in perfectly good faith, has just made the mistake of thinking that in that letter my right hon. Friend was referring to what he is talking about, namely, a tax allowance. I am merely pointing out the error.

Lord Balniel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. We will study with great care the very careful selection of words which appears to have been used. I accept entirely in good faith the explanation which the hon. Gentleman has given.
9.15 p.m.
I want to return to what I regard as being, perhaps, of even greater significance, namely, the Clause, which is designed to give tax allowance to those who are 100 per cent. disabled. For many years this kind of Clause has been resisted by Treasury spokesmen on the grounds of administrative inconvenience. The Royal Commission on Taxation of Profits and Income in 1954 specifically recognised, as we all do, that the tax structure cannot possibly provide for relief for all the different categories of human misery, unhappiness and affliction.
Of course, we recognise that the tax structure must be rigid. It must make it

difficult for persons of ill will to evade it. None the less, the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income in 1954 went out of its way to advocate tax relief of the kind which we are now putting before the Committee. Perhaps I might quote from paragraph 201 of the Report, in which the Royal Commission said:
The taxpayer's own disability is hardly recognised under the existing system. Yet there are many kinds of disability (putting aside age, which is provided for by a special relief) so severe that they modify the whole conditions of a person's life and impose upon him a constant levy of extra expense that may fairly be said to affect the taxable capacity of his income.
The Royal Commission went on to say:
Our general conclusion is that grave disability ought to be the subject of allowance. … We made a number of enquiries in quarters that we thought might assist us: and we came to the conclusion that the standard that we ought to recommend to qualify for a disability allowance should be that of 100 per cent. or total disablement as applied by the Ministry of Pensions … for the purpose of war pensions.
The new Clause implements in its entirety the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income.
I am well aware that there are certain arguments against it. I am not prepared to press the Clause to a Division—it would be grossly hypocritical if I did. None the less, in all those years when they were on the Opposition benches, hon. Members opposite moved this kind of Clause. They rejected the arguments which had been given by Treasury Ministers. They pressed the Clause to a Division.
Almost every Minister in the Cabinet has voted in favour of the Clause. I ask them to consider seriously where their moral responsibility lies. If they reject the new Clause, and if they look up their previous votes and read their previous speeches, I am bound to say that if they were to reject the Clause, the cloak of hypocrisy would fit closely around their shoulders.

Mr. Symonds: I shall not detain the Committee long, but I heard the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) say something about the cloak of hypocrisy. I well remember appealing over the last six years to his


right hon. and hon. Friends to give relief to a blind person who had a guide dog. What relief did the party opposite give? It would be well for hon. Members opposite to remember that they did not give any relief.
I want to speak on a subject that is dear to me in more ways than one. I have spoken in this way since I was first elected. I wish to appeal to the Treasury on behalf of blind people. I wish to give them this additional relief because I know what a blind person has to go through. I know the hardships which they have to suffer, particularly the younger ones. I know the difficulties which beset them.
Blind people are extraordinarily independent. I wonder on how many occasions hon. Members have wanted to help a blind person across a street and have been told, "Thank you but I can manage"? I know how blind people feel about this, because a member of my family is so afflicted. I know the young men with whom he comes in contact. They receive only £8 or £9 a week, and, although they have families to support, their independence is such that they would rather work than rely on State assistance or something of that nature.
There is a workshop for the blind in Cumberland, and on many occasions I have seen blind people travelling there. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) has seen them, too. These are the people on whose behalf I am making this appeal. I appealed to the Opposition when they were in power, but they gave them no help or assistance. During the last 150 hours hon. Gentlemen opposite have appealed for relief from Capital Gains Tax, and for more help and assistance for their friends by asking that they be relieved from paying Corporation Tax. My appeal tonight to the Chancellor is to give a little extra relief to these blind people.

Mr. Alison: In rising to speak in support of these new Clauses, I should like to address my remarks particularly to new Clause No. 54. I think that it would be to the point if I started by referring to one of my constituents, because this would help to pinpoint the need for

this Clause, and also to pinpoint the anomalies in the present situation.
My constituent has been a polio victim since 1931. The Committee can visualise his condition if I say that he is completely paralysed from the waist down. He has the minimum use of one arm, his right arm, and he is, therefore, permanently confined to a wheelchair. He is not married, and he lives alone, which means that regular help is indispensable in his case. He cannot use public transport because he is chairborne, and because of the lack of strength in his arms he is unable to operate an invalid tricycle. The expense in which he is involved as a result of his disability amounts to about £150 a year.
This case is exacerbated by the fact that after a long period on National Assistance, by reason of his grit and determination, and also by reason of some highly intelligent collaboration by his employer, he has succeeded at last in getting employment of a rather specialised character with the National Scientific Lending Library at Boston Spa.
Before getting this job he was helped by the local medical officer of health to the extent of receiving home help for 12 hours a week, but since he obtained this employment he has to pay for this help, although it is indispensable to him. I am aware of the difficulties which face Treasury Ministers in investigating the home needs of every type of disabled person. I am also aware of the difficulties of pinpointing every kind of disability to which the Treasury Ministers always refer in resisting these appeals. Nevertheless, I want to put forward two definite proposals in respect of cases in my constituency.
First, some discretion should be given to local inspectors of taxes to consider individual cases on their merits. This is often done in respect of other people, and I believe that we could meet the need of many of those for whom we are appealing if local inspectors of taxes were given more discretion. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to give attention to the provision that already exists in Section 479 of the Finance Act, 1952, in respect of the clergy. I refer to this because we have already discussed the situation of clergymen today. It is not without interest that special provision is


made for tax allowance in respect of the use of domestic help by clergymen.
I want to quote two paragraphs from a little pamphlet prepared by the Churches Main Committee for the guidance of clergy, indicating the sort of tax allowances that they might expect, sometimes with the assistance of the local inspector of taxes, at his discretion. The pamphlet says:
An allowance may also be made to clergy for the following expenses, where borne by the clergyman or minister … The cost or part cost of a servant, to the extent that a clergyman or minister is necessarily involved by the performance of his duty in expenditure on domestic help that would not otherwise be incurred. Where instead of employing domestic help a clergyman or minister pays his wife wages commensurate with her work in cleaning the part of the house used mainly or substantially for the purposes of his duty the payment will be admitted as a deduction.
It is not without significance that in regard to one category of persons special tax allowance is made for the employment of domestic help to the extent that it is necessary to the performance of duties.
If the Financial Secretary will bear that point in mind in considering the use of domestic help for which my constituent has to pay, and which is indispensable for the performance of his work at the National Scientific Lending Library at Boston Spa, he will see that it is precisely analogous to the sort of tax allowance given to the clergymen, for if it were not for the provision of this domestic help he would be unable to do his work.
If he had to leave his employment and return to National Assistance he would receive domestic help at the taxpayers' expense. I would have thought that there was an unanswerable case for extending the allowance now given to clergy in respect of the use of domestic help to other categories of people whose work is dependent on the provision of domestic help. That is why I urge the Financial Secretary to give careful consideration to the proposal made in new Clause No. 54.

9.30 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I am very glad to support the new Clauses. All the proposals which are contained therein are designed to help people suffering definite hardship. That is not a reason in itself; the important

thing to remember is that, at the same time, these people are making a considerable contribution towards the Exchequer. The saving for the Exchequer is very well known to those of us who have been closely associated with committees dealing with the accommodation of elderly people and those who are no longer able to be maintained in their own homes. It does not seem many years ago that the cost of Part III accommodation was approximately—taking into account the Exchequer contribution, and including the local authority contribution—£170 a year per person.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) pointed out, that figure has more than doubled in the intervening years. Now, anyone retaining an invalid relative at home does so at considerable personal sacrifice. Although they may, and in most cases do, wish to do this, if they take the only alternative and find them accommodation in some form of home or in Part III accommodation, this costs the nation between £400 and £600 per year. The higher figure relates to those who are taken into hospital solely because there is no other place for them to go. The Committee will understand the great difficulties of finding beds even on a temporary basis for such cases. The overall cost of the bed is, nevertheless, that for which they would normally be accountable had they patients for whom there was some definite hope of improvement by medical care.
Many of these cases have often been put forward before. I am in the happy position, like my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth, of not having been amongst those who voted against the Clause which is already very familiar in this form to all those now sitting on the Treasury Bench. Therefore, I do not feel in the least inhibited about expressing my support of Clause 20, the provisions of which I have put forward to the best of my ability throughout the years that I have been in the House.
In the Chancellor's own words, Clause No. 20 has had the support of so many distinguished members of the present Government that it must give considerable added weight to the response which we expect tonight. These Clauses have been rejected in the past, because of difficulty


of definition, because they may create more anomalies or because of the difficulties of ensuring fairness between one taxpayer and another.
First of all, considerable definition has been made, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth has said, by the research done by this new council, which has been in operation for only a short time. I should like to add my tribute to the Rev. Mary Webster for the work that her council has done and the backing which it has had from the Woolwich Council of Social Services. It has defined already in a short time, certain categories of people which we seek to help in this Clause No. 61.
I have never accepted the argument that we would be helping some by leaving others without help. I am one of those who believe in having half a loaf rather than no bread. While it is always difficult to argue fairness between taxpayers, I find it difficult to accept the argument if, as is the fact, some taxpayers are disabled and, therefore, unable to fend for themselves and others are not. This point has been very ably brought out during the debate.
Much research still needs to be done and while the cost of some of the proposals has been estimated—as with new Clause No. 61—I am the first to admit that it would be difficult to determine the cost of some of the other new Clauses. Nevertheless, there is scope within the range of the new Clauses to permit some concessions to be made and, particularly with respect to new Clause No. 61, the Treasury could accept a new principle which, I believe, all hon. Members would find desirable.
I will quote some examples, because there is nothing like the words of the people concerned to express the cases which we are trying to express on their behalf. One letter—and this might come within the scope of new Clauses No. 61 or No. 62—simply says:
My particular difficulty was caused by the following; my mother, aged 63, already a diabetic and who some years ago suffered a coronary thrombosis, could not longer be kept in hospital as no further treatment was likely to be effective. I was told that she was to come home and there is only myself to look after her.
The letter ends on a note which we all have in mind:

I am over the worst for the time being but there is certainly no help here when it is most needed".
Another letter states:
I am very glad that there is some effort being made for an increase in the dependent relatives' allowances, in my case for a daughter's services. There must be many people in a position similar to my own. My mother is over 90 and requires company during the day".
I will not read the rest of that letter because it is a similar story to that told by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth.
Another letter states:
My mother is 86 and I am 56. I am obliged, and I find it very difficult to do so, to give up my work to be at home with my mother.
Another letter which I have states:
For 20½ years it has been my privilege"—
and this is the way people look upon this work—
to care and tend here at home, without recourse to any organisation or national hospital, for my wholly incapacitated wife who is a sufferer from multiple sclerosis. I am now about 70 years of age and I find that this is becoming a little more difficult.
These letters bring home to us in real terms the objects in which we are trying to persuade the Financial Secretary to take an interest.
Another remarkable case from my constituency is of a woman whose husband deserted her and who is totally paralysed from the waist down. Confined permanently to a wheelchair, this woman not only looks after her daughter, who is about 9 years old, but is doing all the cooking and housework and continues her job as a teacher, being a university honours graduate. Here is a case for which at present there is no adequate home help—a case which could be brought within the ambit of one of the new Clauses.
I must now refer again to the case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison). I, too, had previously read this correspondence, but not realising the point which the Financial Secretary would make after my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) had left the Chamber for a few minutes—and did not read out this letter—I should like to quote it. It is from the Treasury Chambers, and is


dated 14th December, 1964. It is written to the individual whose case was raised by my hon. Friend, and it reads:
In reply to your letter of 20th November, 1964, the Chancellor of the Exchequer asks me to say that the suggestion that there should be a special Income Tax allowance for the severely disabled is one of those which he will be considering as part of his review of the Income Tax personal allowances generally.
That must make it quite clear that my hon. Friend was not only putting forward his case in good faith, but that this was not in any way connected with a social security measure but referred directly to Income Tax—

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Lady is now reading from an entirely different letter written by a Treasury official, while the former letter was written by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance on an entirely different case referred to in a Labour Party social security policy pamphlet—

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Mr. Clark Hutchison rose—

The Chairman: Order. We cannot have two interventions in succession.

Miss Harvie Anderson: The whole case has been based on tax matters. If it was the intention of the right hon. Lady to take it into the social security field, there was no indication in her letter that this was so beyond the reference to the pamphlet which, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury knows, is a social security pamphlet. Frankly, we are not all as familiar as hon. Members opposite with the publications of the Labour Party, so we must be forgiven if we take the letter as it is written, especially when the whole of the correspondence includes the letter I have just read.
I appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman to have particular interest in new Clause No. 61, because this is one which would appear to be costed adequately and to make a definite concession to a section of the community that can be defined. I hope that we may have an actual concession, and that it will not be the only concession given in relation to this very wide range of new Clauses, which I believe to be most deserving.

Mr. MacDermot: We have now had quite a lengthy debate on several new Clauses, all of which propose special tax

reliefs in favour of those who are in one way or another disabled. Naturally, this is a subject that rouses the sympathy of hon. Members in all parts of the Committee. As hon. Members have said, it is a topic to which we return almost annually in our Finance Bills, and we often hear some of the most moving of speeches during the course of these debates.
These are also debates in which Treasury Ministers traditionally are seen in their hardest and most inhuman light, and I confess that in turning to this subject I was reminded of the shock I felt as a young barrister on first hearing one of my senior colleagues referring to the tag that hard cases make bad law. It seemed to me to be a very cynical remark, but in time I came to understand it. Anyone who is responsible for trying to preserve the coherence of legislation in any field such as this gets reminded of that saying from time to time.
9.45 p.m.
Before I turn to the particular Clauses, I remind hon. Members of some of the principles which I think we are agreed must guide us in our approach to these problems. If we are to have an acceptable taxation system and an acceptable system of allowances, however much our sympathies be aroused, we must agree that whatever decisions we take must be soundly rooted in principle and defensible in principle. The reason for that is that no tax system will be acceptable unless it is really felt to be fair. It has to be felt to be fair and it has to be fair between different classes of taxpayer. If we take a decision for a particular class of case we have to see whether there is a principle which distinguishes it from other classes and, if not, we must face the implications and consider whether we are prepared to extend it to the other cases which are not distinguishable.
We have also to see that whatever we propose is administratively workable. This comes back to the question of the importance of seeing that people respect our tax system as being fair. If we introduce measures which administratively cannot be operated in a satisfactory way, this will immediately lead to great feelings of injustice with a falling off in the respect which the administration of our tax law commands throughout the country. We also want to see that in whatever


we propose the benefit will actually go to those we intend to benefit.
This leads to a point which has been referred to very fairly by some hon. Members, that when our sympathies are aroused in these matters of how to help the afflicted it does not always follow that tax reliefs are the best means of achieving those goals. Sometimes we shall achieve what we want more effectively through the instrument of the social services than through taxation reliefs. Some of the more ancient of our tax reliefs antedate the Welfare State as we know it. If we had had then the kind of structure of social services which we have now some of these tax reliefs might not have found their way on to the Statute Book as they would be matters dealt with by social security legislation.
Referring again to the correspondence, there is no kind of bad faith on anyone's part; it is simply an example of the confusion which arises when we use the word "allowance" to cover two entirely different things. We use the word "allowance" in the social security field with reference to a hardship allowance and meaning the payment of money and also, in this debate for example, as referring to a constant attendance allowance as a proposed tax relief. What my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance was referring to, she assures me—I have not seen the letter—was the use of the words "constant attendance allowance" in one of our pamphlets with reference to a proposed social insurance payment for the purpose of financing constant attendance.

Lord Balniel: As the hon. and learned Gentleman raised the matter during the course of my speech, may I attempt to get this absolutely clear? The letter written by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance said:
we propose to give a constant attendance allowance.
I quite accept the argument which the hon. and learned Gentleman is putting forward, that it is possible to give social security benefits directly through social security legislation. Is it then the definite intention of the present Administration to introduce a constant attendance allowance benefit?

Mr. MacDermot: It is part of the policy which is contained in the pamphlet

to which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance was referring. The policies which we have advocated, and which we advocated before the General Election, are not matters which we have ever undertaken to carry out within 12 months. I remember my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs making several speeches during the General Election which made it perfectly clear that our programme was not merely a five-year programme but that much of it would require a second full term before we could carry it out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite, who only live from day to day, cannot conceive—

Dame Irene Ward: Dame Irene Ward rose—

Mr. MacDermot: No, I will not give way. They cannot conceive of a political party being able to think ahead and see further than the end of its nose.
I turn, after those completely uncontroversial remarks, to the new Clause which I suggest is the one that I should deal with first—that is, new Clause 20. I take this first because it is the one which is widest in its scope.

Dame Irene Ward: No. 19 is first.

Mr. MacDermot: I will come to that later. I shall deal with them all, but it is logical to deal first with new Clause 20 because that is the one which is widest in its scope. It suggests an allowance for totally disabled persons similar to the relief introduced only a few years ago for registered blind persons. As hon. Members opposite have reminded us, this is not the first time that we have discussed these proposals. Indeed, the Clause is copied word for word from an Amendment which was moved last year by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends when we were in opposition. I am also reminded that I myself voted for that Amendment. I will not be so unkind as to remind right hon. and hon. Members opposite which of them voted against it, but I notice that they have been very careful to select someone to reply to the debate who did not take part in the Division. All I can say on my own behalf is that, since that time, I have become a sadder and a wiser man. On that occasion, the Amendment was resisted by the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury,


on the grounds that this was a matter which was better dealt with by means of the social services and not by taxation.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: He lost his seat.

Mr. MacDermot: As the hon. Lady said, he lost his seat. He also argued that—I am sorry; I have lost my train of thought.

Dame Irene Ward: Can I help you?

The Chairman: I hope that the Committee will give attention while the hon. and learned Gentleman explains the inconsistency of both sides of the Committee.

Mr. MacDermot: The then Economic Secretary based his resistance of the Amendment primarily on the fact that this was not a matter which should be dealt with by tax reliefs; it should be dealt with through the social services. He also pointed out, which is a matter frequently referred to in these debates, that, when one is thinking of people who are suffering hardship and are in need among the poorer sections of the community, the fact is that taxation reliefs give little or no benefit to those who are in the greatest need, because it is only those who have sufficient income to qualify for tax reliefs who benefit from them. It was on this ground, principally, that the then Economic Secretary opposed it.
Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend, having himself supported these Amendments when moved by us in Opposition, naturally when he came to consider his Budget policy for this year, as indicated in the letter which has been referred to, looked very closely into this proposal for a total disability allowance. Without wearying the Committee with all the details, the fact is that there were then put to him by those who advise us on these matters quite formidable difficulties in dealing with this case on the simple matter of administration. The principal and first difficulty is that of how, from the practical point of view, one would determine who would be the people who would qualify for relief.
The new Clause proposes that a totally disabled person should be defined as meaning first of all, those who are already in receipt of industrial injury or war

disablement pensions by reference to a test of 100 per cent. disablement and, secondly, persons who, though not in receipt of such a pension, are disabled in a manner and degree equivalent to 100 per cent. disablement. The first category are already accepted under the insurance provisions as being 100 per cent. disabled. They would not benefit from an allowance of this kind because they are already in receipt of a tax-free social security benefit which far exceeds the amount of allowance proposed and as they would have to give credit the tax relief cut reduced by seven-ninths of that tax free payment they would receive little benefit from this proposal. Therefore, the proposal would only operate for the second category—those disabled in manner and degree equivalent to 100 per cent. disablement.
Who is to determine whether a person is disabled in that sense? Obviously a tax inspector cannot do it. This means that one would have to set up an administration comparable to that set up under the National Insurance scheme to determine whether people are disabled to that degree. In addition, there will be many people suffering from different kinds of diseases and ailments not covered under the present pensions scheme and one would have to consider whether they qualified as 100 per cent. disabled.
Whatever definition was drawn up, it would give rise to complaints by those people who fell outside it, and if we extended this provision to the 100 per cent., pressures would immediately start from people who would say, "If it is 100 per cent., why not 90 per cent.?". Hon. Members who are familiar with these matters know the apparent illogicalities of what constitutes 100 per cent. disablement. If a man has an amputation of both legs just below the knee, that is 100 per cent., but if amputation is at the ankles and both feet are missing that is only 90 per cent. disablement, and so on. Therefore, the pressures would be great and would be irresistible.
If illustration of that is required, one has only to look at New Clause 56 which proposes that relief should be extended to people with a 75 per cent. disablement. If one accepted that, how could one hold the line there? Pressure would start on behalf of people with 50 per cent. disablement. Therefore, if we had a


scheme of this kind the result would be an enormous number of claims, in perfectly good faith, from people who felt that they were entitled to payment of this kind. There would have to be elaborate machinery to decide who was entitled, and there would have to be appeal machinery. In the end the result would be that for every person who fell on one side of the line and established his right to the allowance there would probably be two or three who fell on the other side and would not establish the right and we would thus create in total a greater sense of injustice.
10.0 p.m.
There is another fundamental difficulty in this approach. The intention underlying the proposal is, of course, to give assistance to people who, by reason of disablement, incur additional expenditure which ordinary people do not incur. Again, those who are familiar with the administration of our social insurance provisions will know that there are many people 100 per cent. disabled—fully within that term—who are able to be remuneratively employed without incurring any additional expenditure whatever—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Indeed, there are—whereas there are others who do not qualify to anything like the 100 per cent. degree but who are very severely disabled—perhaps not able to work or able to do very little work—who incur considerable additional expenditure. So it is a very rough and ready test as a means of trying to attain the object.
It was because of these formidable arguments which were presented to him that my right hon. Friend felt unable to include this proposal in his Budget for this year. But I want to make clear that it is our earnest anxiety to examine these matters to see what reliefs, if any, we can carve out of the proposals which have been made which will be really practical and workable.
When we discussed several of these matters on Clause 10, I made two general comments. First, it is obvious that a year in which it is necessary to increase taxes substantially is not an occasion when a Chancellor can, in his Budget, set about a comprehensive review of personal allowances. If one is to put matters straight and try to get rid of

some of the anomalies in our system, this can be done much more effectively in a year when a Chancellor is able to grant tax reliefs. Second, because of the inter-relation of tax reliefs and social security benefits to which I have been referring, if one is to make a comprehensive review of these matters, it must be done within the context of a review of the social services.
I was asked by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth not to refer to this topic, but I cannot help doing so. It is relevant, as she knows, because she herself came with a deputation from the organisation to which she referred to see my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, and there was then discussed the social security aspect of the very matters she raised so eloquently in her speech today.
The constant attendance allowance proposal raised by new Clause No. 54 was considered with great care by the Royal Commission. After receiving representations on the subject from many sources, the Royal Commission rejected the proposal chiefly on the ground that its effect would be very haphazard and discriminatory in giving relief to people who incurred a particular form of expenditure when there were many others at least equally, if not worse, disabled incurring perhaps greater expenditure who would have no relief.
One has only to think of the example of the person without relatives or friends to care for him who goes into a paying nursing home. Such a person, under this proposal, would not qualify for relief at all. Again, as has been said, the result of granting this form of concession would lead to widespread pressures for its extension to cases in which the wife was incapacitated or the householder had a nurse or attendant for some other member of his family or household.
I was asked in this connection how one distinguished this case from that of the housekeeper allowance. The housekeeper allowance, as the Committee knows, is basically intended as an allowance to help the person who is confronted, single-handed, with the problem of looking after and bringing up small children. It is one extension that the Royal Commission found to be anomalous—namely, that in favour of the widow.

Mr. Alison: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman comment on Section 479 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, which gives an Income Tax allowance to clergy for domestic help? Why should that principle not be extended to other categories?

Mr. MacDermot: I was not aware of that provision, but I remind the hon. Gentleman of what the Royal Commission said in general about Income Tax allowances
…income tax is an annual tax that has got to be administered. It is a tax that has to be collected each year from many millions of the population. It cannot therefore proceed on the basis of minute inquiries into the multiplicity of personal circumstances of individuals.
It may have been possible there to carve out one small section of people for whom administratively that relief could be worked but this is precisely the difficulty I referred to. If one accepts an extension of that kind, immediately the argument follows, "If this is granted to one person why not to everyone else?" One then ends up with something that is administratively not workable.
New Clause No. 61 deals with dependant relative attendance relief. The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth explained that it is limited in particular to single women, almost as a token of respect for the work, which has been widely admired, of the Rev. Mary Webster and the Council for Single Women.

Dame Irene Ward: Dame Irene Ward rose—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Thomas Steele): Order. I hope that we will listen quietly to the Financial Secretary. It seems to me that there is too much noise.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Steele. The Financial Secretary has misquoted a Clause. Surely I am entitled to point that out to him? Surely we are not being gagged here?

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady misheard me. She was interrupting the Minister. I was asking right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to be quite so that they would hear what was happening.

Dame Irene Ward: Thank you, Mr. Steele.

Mr. MacDermot: I was giving way to the hon. Lady, but perhaps she does not now wish to interrupt. [Interruption.] I am sorry but I cannot deal with interruptions made from a sitting position. I did give way to her. I do not know whether or not she wishes to intervene.

Dame Irene Ward: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I would really have put the case quite nicely if I had not myself been interrupted and I did not quite know what was happening. I explained Clause 61 in great detail and said that the reference to single women covered everyone else as well. It is no good the hon. and learned Gentleman riding off on a note of single women, for that makes nonsense of one's attempts to deploy one's case.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Lady should have a little more patience. I was not attempting to ride off on anything. I was merely seeking to join her in paying tribute to the lady who has commanded such widespread admiration for the work she has done in the social security field in calling attention to a class of person whose conditions have been up to now rather ignored and overlooked.
The proposal here is that, in effect, there should be a £50 addition to the dependant relief allowance in certain cases. If the extra Income Tax reliefs were conceded to a tax payer who looked after a person of the kind referred to in the Clause, it would be claimed that there should at the same time be additional benefits and possibly cash benefits for people who needed care and attention of this kind but who had no relative to look after them or where the relative who looked after them had insufficient income to benefit from Income Tax relief. In other words, again there would be a similar spread of pressure and if relief which in effect benefits only those who have sufficient income to benefit from an Income Tax allowance is granted, it will be said with justification that the greater need is to benefit those of lesser means, and that can be done only through the social services.
I turn now to new Clause 19 which deals with the registered blind. There are some 100,000 registered blind persons


in this country. About one in ten of them, about 10,000, benefit from the existing tax allowance in favour of registered blind persons. This is a revealing figure because it shows that nine-tenths, who presumably are the most needy nine-tenths of the blind, do not benefit at all from this allowance.
When this special allowance was introduced, I believe by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), it was made clear by the then Chief Secretary who moved the provision in question that they were being treated as a unique and quite exceptional class of persons. They were in a clearly identifiable category and there was no administrative problem in trying to determine who they were. They had already established their disability and were on a register which was clearly available to be checked and there was therefore virtually no possibility of abuse. The affliction from which these people suffer commands a unique and a quite extraordinary degree of sympathy. Given all these circumstances, there was a feeling on both sides of the Committee that there should be an exception from the general principles which I have been stating about allowances for dependent persons so as to give allowances to the blind.
The new Clause deals with the situation that under the present law a person has to be registered for the whole year in order to qualify for the relief. It follows that when blind persons are registered, during the year in which they are registered they do not get any relief at all, not even proportionate relief, and have to wait until the second year of their registration before they can qualify for the allowance.
It was suggested by the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) that this was anomalous. In the strict sense it is not anomalous. On the contrary, it follows the practice for various allowances of this class, which is that the person has to qualify for the whole of the tax year in order to qualify for the allowance. Those operate, for example, for the various child minder allowances. This is no doubt the reason why the allowance was drawn in this form.
Hon. Members have referred to the hardship which this occasions to blind, people in particular cases, and I think

that it was the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) who emphasised that it was in the early months when people were first afflicted that they were likely to incur the greatest additional expenditure and be in the greatest need of the allowance. We have received advice that there is a danger of repercussions. Already there are people who argue, and have been arguing for some considerable time, that there ought to be an equivalent arrangement for the other allowances, such as the child minder allowances, and that people who suffer from the disability in question, or the need in question, for only part of the year should be entitled to a proportionate part of the allowance. For reasons with which I need not weary the Committee, in these cases this would be quite unworkable and impracticable administratively.
I therefore beseech the Committee that if they agree, as my right hon. Friend suggests that they should, with this new Clause, that it should in doing so understand quite clearly that we are still treating this allowance as a quite unique one and that our decision today, if that be our decision, is not intended to serve as a precedent for any further extension of the principle or as a valid argument which can be used on a future occasion. Hoping and believing that the Committee will take this view, in spite of the administrative risks and difficulties involved, my right hon. Friend urges the Committee to accept this Clause.

10.15 p.m.

Sir Keith Joseph: The whole Committee will want to welcome the acceptance by the Government of the new Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) which has crowned the achievement of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) and has brought a valuable concession to the registered blind. Although we welcome that, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are shocked by some of the other answers that the Financial Secretary has given. I will try once more to state the arguments which have been so trenchantly put on this side of the Committee in the hope that even now the Government may be persuaded to change their mind on some of these Clauses.
I must warn the Financial Secretary that there are some of these Clauses on which, if the Government do not change their mind, I shall have to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to carry our disagreement into the Division Lobby at the appropriate time. I would ask the Government to recognise that there is no question here of irresponsible opposition. None of the new Clauses put down by my hon. Friends and spoken to today involve the taxpayer, the Revenue, in anything but the most modest cost. None of them is addressed to anything but the most urgent and important needs. We are not seeking to put on the Government, at a time of considerable financial difficulties, any cost that they would find unacceptable. Now that the Financial Secretary has accepted the Clause dealing with the registered blind the remaining new Clauses fall into two groups.
In the first group new Clause No. 20 and new Clause No. 54 deal with the disabled and I do not need to spell out the arguments in favour of this new Clause. My hon. Friends the Members for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), for Hertford (Lord Balniel) and for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) have spoken forcibly and trenchantly in favour of the new Clause which is in precisely the same terms as those moved from these benches last year by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), at present a member of the Government.
I will not go over the whole argument, but I will mention that new Clause No. 20 does not involve a heavy cost. Because of the deduction which must be made before any allowance is claimed the cost would be negligible and the Financial Secretary has not claimed that the cost would be heavy in his answer. A number of valuable and constructive points were made in the thoughtful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) in a speech which I think the whole Committee listened to with the greatest attention because of the constituency case involved. He made a point which would be met if the Government were willing to accept new Clause No. 20.
It is odd, to say the least, that so many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen now supporting, or in the Government, found the reasons for supporting this new Clause overwhelming last year and now find them such that the Financial Secretary can dismiss the new Clause as unnecessary. The Financial Secretary says he has become a sadder and a wiser man since he joined the Government. We all sympathise with his feelings on finding himself sadder. We cannot accept that he has become any wiser.
The fact is that he reproduced at considerable length all the arguments which were put by Mr. Maurice MacMillan from the same Box last year which the Opposition regarded as lacking in persuasion and after which the Opposition voted in strength in favour of the new Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Chief Secretary, the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, the Chief Whip, the Foreign Secretary and the Financial Secretary all went into the Lobby last year in favour of that Clause. If the Labour Party, when in opposition, refused to accept arguments which when in power they find totally acceptable, it only goes to show how thoroughly irresponsible it was when in opposition.

Mr. Robert Maxwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman implying that this did not happen when he and his colleagues were in power? Would he tell the Committee how he voted on this issue the last time that it was debated?

Sir K. Joseph: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the debate, he would have known the answer to both those points.
I am not seeking to persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends to carry this new Clause to a Division because when in government, and despite the strong views of some of my colleagues, we found, on balance, the arguments of the Financial Secretary persuasive when they were put forward by his Tory predecessors. What we are shocked to find is how cynically Ministers change their views, in spite of there being no change in the arguments.
I turn to new Clauses Nos. 61 and 52, put, I believe, overwhelmingly persuasively by my hon. Friends the Members for Tynemouth and Renfrewshire, East. They argued in favour of starting on the operation of encouraging in various ways


those people who at considerable cost to themselves—cost spiritual, cost physical and cost financial—maintain and tend in their own homes elderly and infirm relatives. This is a cause which has become associated with the name of the Rev. Mary Webster, and we have all been glad to pay tribute to her pioneering work.
In a household in which a member of the younger generation tends one or more members of an older generation of his or her family, it may sometimes be that the member of the younger generation can go out to work and earn money, and in some cases the infirmity of the elderly is such that the member of the younger generation cannot even go out to work but has to give his or her full-time attention to caring for a member of an older generation.
There is another pair of cases which we must consider in general: first, where the income is of the younger generation; and, secondly, where the income is only of the elder generation because the younger generation is not free to go out to work. That is why this pair of new Clauses allows, in the case of new Clause No. 61, an additional allowance for the younger generation to be some small compensation for the burden that that younger generation takes upon himself or herself, whereas new Clause No. 52 provides an extra small allowance, again to care for members of an older, infirm generation.
We cannot possible presume to try to make up to the younger generation for the self-sacrifice which often goes with this care of the elderly in their homes. We can only recognise, as my hon. Friends so eloquently did in their speeches, that in providing this attendance to their own elderly relatives they not only fulfil the highest dictates of humanity, but serve the interests of the taxpayer and the nation by keeping people where they are best looked after as far as it is practicable to look after them, namely, at home, and to keep them out of expensive institutions.
The cost of this pair of new Clauses would not be enormous. So far as I can gather from the answers given by the Financial Secretary to questions specifically put to him on the subject, the cost of new Clause No. 61, if totally accepted by the Government, would be £5 million. We well understand that the Government may wish not to spend that extra money

this year. If only the Government would change their totally negative attitude to this newly-discussed class of need and make a start on encouraging these people, we would welcome a smaller concession.
The Government could make a smaller concession in new Clause No. 61 by asking my hon. Friend to withdraw it and saying that they would put down a new Clause with a smaller tax allowance than £50; or they could say that they will not give the £50 to the whole class but that they will pick out a smaller section where the urgency has a priority. In either of these ways, we would gladly accept that the Government would be free to accept the principle while minimising the cost this year.
On new Clause No. 52, however, we really cannot accept that there is any cost implication that should restrain the Government. The fact is that the tax allowance for the elderly infirm, where a daughter both resides at home, is maintained by the elderly person and the elderly person depends upon the care of the daughter, stood at £25 until 1953, was raised from £25 to £40 in 1953 by Lord Butler, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) and has stood at £40 ever since.
It is 12 years since this tax allowance was raised to £40 and my hon. Friends and I feel that it is time to recognise the change in the value of money and to raise it again. We have suggested £100. The cost of this new Clause would be £250,000 in a full year, but if the Financial Secretary wanted to accept it in principle he could accept it by raising the £40 to £75 at a lesser cost, I understand, of £150,000 a year.
We are glad at the acceptance of the new Clause 19. We are shocked by the Government's attitude to our new Clauses Nos. 20 and 54 and we urgently ask them to reconsider their entirely sterile, negative and unimaginative attitude to new Clauses Nos. 61 and 52. We hope that the Financial Secretary will reconsider his position on these last two new Clauses in the light of our willingness to accept a modest beginning to this new approach. If he does we shall welcome his change of mind. If he does not, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will in due course divide against the Government.

Mr. MacDermot: I should have pointed out to the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) that the actual form of wording of his new Clause does not quite fit the general scheme of Income Tax allowances. If the hon. Member is willing to accept my assurance on this point and will withdraw his Motion, I will undertake to bring forward on Report a new Clause which will give full effect to his proposal.

Mr. Dean: In the light of the Financial Secretary's undertaking, for which I am much obliged, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

The Temporary Chairman: New Clause No. 33, Mr. Ian Lloyd.

Mr. David Price: On a point of order, Mr. Steele. Will the Question be put on new Clause No. 20? I understand that it was starred with the possibility of a Division upon it.

The Temporary Chairman: I understood that the Division was not required.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. Do we not have an opportunity to divide in support of our new Clauses, Mr. Steele?

The Temporary Chairman: The Committee will have an opportunity to divide on the new Clauses when we reach them.

New Clause 33.—(ANNUAL ALLOWANCES IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ON SHIPS.)

Annual allowances under Chapter II of Part X of the Income Tax Act 1952 in respect of capital expenditure incurred after 5th April 1965 on the provision of a ship shall be computed in accordance with Section 281 of the Income Tax Act 1952 as if, instead of requiring an annual allowance to be five-fourths of the percentage therein specified of the relevant capital amount, that section required it to be so much of that amount as is specified by the person to whom the allowance is to be made in making his claim for the allowance.—[Mr. Ian Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
A professor of logic was recently much exercised by the problem of defining a dog. It was not solved for him until one of his brighter students had produced the definition that a dog was an animal which was recognised by other dogs. I could not help the Financial Secretary were he perturbed by the problem of defining the Finance Bill, because it certainly would not be recognised by—[Interruption.]

10.30 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. If hon. Members wish to leave the Chamber, will they do so quietly?

Mr. Lloyd: Indeed, it would hardly recognise itself in a mirror, and if the mirror was the Finance Bill of 1865 it is of some interest that the whole of the business of that year's Finance Bill was discussed in 40 pages of HANSARD—even by the standards of that day somewhat considerable—and in one day.
But despite the repeated attempts which I and my hon. Friends have made to secure that the Bill as it stands recognises the special plight of the shipping industry, so far we have had only the vaguest assurances, and I submit that this does not amount to reassurance. This Clause is our last attempt in this context to test, first, the Government's sincerity; secondly, the Government's realism; and, thirdly, if I may put it to the Chief Secretary, the Government's ingenuity—

sincerity because of the Government's repeated promises to industries such as the shipping industry and others similarly placed; realism because the shipping industry lives in a world of intense international competition which must receive recognition in this House; and ingenuity because the Government claim that ingenuity can solve the problems of anomalies.
Since shipping cannot exactly claim to be an infant industry, we cannot use the argument that the Government in this sense, over the problem of anomalies, is throwing out the baby with the bath water, although it can be argued that many enterprises within the shipping industry are infant enterprises. The proper analogy is that the Government are prepared to plough under the whole crop because some of the corn is likely to be attacked by weevils.
The purpose of this Clause is to bring the Bill into line with the provisions of Section 38 of the Finance Act, 1963. This allows firms in development districts to choose their own period of write-off. Section 38 encourages investment in development districts. This Clause would encourage development in ships. Perhaps it could be argued that whereas Section 38 of the 1963 Act depends primarily on a geographical definition of development, this Clause depends on an economic definition of development. Perhaps in the situation in which the United Kingdom finds itself, economic criteria are preferable to geographical or social criteria because if the economic criteria are satisfied we can possibly create the resources with which to satisfy our further ambitions.
The Committee may ask, why again for shipping? The general arguments in favour of this and other Amendments have been well deployed and fully discussed, but the specific arguments in favour of the Clause are related to four factors. First, the profits in the shipping industry are well known to fluctuate widely. This is not in any sense a direct consequence of management or policy in the shipping industry. It is a direct consequence of the fluctuation in gross revenues, which is something almost entirely beyond the industry's control.
Secondly, the shipping industry has a limited ability to make profits, as experience of the last few years has demonstrated. It is heavily dependent upon investment and capital allowances, and this again has been fully discussed on earlier Amendments. I wish that I could display to the Committee a chart which would illustrate all this verbiage much more simply than I can. However, such visual aids do not as yet exist, but it would help to demonstrate the case if I had a type of modern projector which could throw on a screen behind you, Mr. Steele, a set of figures or a chart. Just as hon. Members on this side desire reform, so we seek to illuminate issues rather than facilitate the Executive. Thirdly, the shipping industry suffers from a low profit to turnover ratio and, therefore, depreciation absorbs a very high proportion of profits. Finally, there remains the fact that profits have been low.
The result, quite simply, is that since 1958 the industry has not been able to set off all its capital allowances due—I emphasise the word "due"—against the trading profits of the industry in the aggregate. It is not to say that some companies have not paid tax, as the Chief Secretary well knows, or that in the most favourable circumstances some companies will in the future still pay tax.
Therefore, the industry is asking for as rapid a write-off as possible, and a write-off provision to have three simple effects. First, to provide insurance against the risk—and it is a very real risk, as the Chief Secretary well knows—of carrying forward capital allowances over many years. Secondly, it would encourage shipowners to build, and this is something, presumably, which lies at the heart of the Government's stated and declared policy towards both the shipping and shipbuilding industries—a provision to ensure that no tax would be payable till the cost of the ship, with investment allowance, be it at 40 per cent. or whatever it might be, has been fully written off.
Thirdly, it would encourage owners to expand in highly competitive fields of shipping enterprise. The growth sectors of shipping are those where risks are low but where the rates are correspondingly fiercely competitive, bulk ore, bulk oil, and bulk chemicals. These are fields in

which to some extent British shipping has been displaced, and if it has been displaced from those fields the reason is not to some extent that there has been more enterprise elsewhere, but that the desire to be enterprising has been so severely circumscribed by the general fiscal environment in which the British shipowner has had to operate.
The Government now have a chance to demonstrate not only their oft-proclaimed understanding of industry as a whole, an understanding which we on this side are alightly sceptical about, but their particular understanding of the special problems of maritime industry. The Financial Secretary, who, I am sorry to say, has left the Chamber, now has a chance to transform his lachrymosal wisdom into constructive purposes.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: This is the last of a series of efforts we have made to try to help the shipping industry because of the way it is bound to be hit by the Corporation Tax proposals. We are trying to do it by analogy with development districts, but I think it is a quite fair one. For our previous proposals to help the industry out of its difficulties we had a lot of sympathy from the Government, but the brutal truth is that we have received only one acceptance of an Amendment and one promise to look again, which really is not very much.
We have been met with various arguments. We were told that we would drive a coach and horses through the Corporation Tax, which would, of course, be the last thing we would try to do, and we were even met on one occasion with the extraordinary argument that the concession would cost not too much, but too little.
I have argued before, and I want to argue again, that there is a particular problem, to assist the special case, for the shipping industry is a special case for a trading nation and for an island nation like ourselves.
I must stress again that frequently in the past Parliament and various Governments have admitted this fact. For example, in 1951 we had the spokesman of a previous Labour Government admitting specifically the unique position and special importance of shipping, and subsequently, in the Budgets of 1956 and


1957, Conservative Governments admitted the same principle.
I believe that time is beginning to run out. If the Government are unable to make concessions in this Bill, that is asking for another year of waiting, and in the meanwhile foreign competition is increasing against us. In addition, that competition is becoming increasingly unfair. If we are to look to the future of the shipping industry, I do not believe that we have an indefinite time at our disposal.
I am delighted that the Chancellor is present. I used to think of him as somebody who was specially interested in the shipping industry, on account of his association with the Admiralty, and I hope that it is not too late for him to put something into the Bill to deal with this matter.
I need hardly remind the Committee how important it is for the merchant fleet to be kept modern. In an era of intense competition, and unfair competition, nothing is more important than having the most modern and up-to-date type of shipping to operate. The purpose of the Clause is to bring that about by writing off the capital put into ships as quickly as possible and by modernising our fleet and putting us in a position to deal with that competition.
I know that on earlier new Clauses the Chief Secretary has tended to talk in terms of averages, but I think that it is a mistake to do that. The various sections of the industry—and they are quite distinct—and their different trades are affected in different ways by these taxation proposals, and they are affected by the competition to which I have referred in different ways.
On an earlier new Clause about investment allowances the Chief Secretary was particularly unsympathetic. He spoke about a £150 million carry forward from what I think he described as investment allowances. I have two comments to make on that. First, I am not sure where he got that figure from, and, secondly, I am sure he would agree that that was an aggregate figure and was not related to investment allowances only, but was for all capital allowances, and about half of it anyway related to wear and tear.
If we take a figure of unabsorbed investment allowances of £75 million, it is only fair to compare that with a figure of no less than £400 million already used by the industry up to the end of 1963. When we remember, in addition, that the cost of replacing the whole of our merchant fleet as it exists today would be no less than £3,600 million, we realise that this figure of between £100 million and £150 million, and this talk about papering the walls with it, is not entirely relevant to the problems of the industry, and probably we can best account for it by the fact that the Chancellor said it at a late hour of the night when we were all getting a little tired.
I believe that one way in which we can help the industry in the Bill is by allowing a complete write-off of the ships in the good years. We have spoken about the cycles of the industry. We are going through a bad cycle at the moment, and we hope that the cycle of high profitability will come soon. If, when that comes, we can use it to write off ships quickly, and use it also to have not only a fleet of 20 million tons—the largest in the world—but also perhaps the most modern, I believe that we shall be able to meet this competition and this flag discrimination, and also meet the tendency of the emergent nations each to try to build up its merchant marine at whatever cost to itself.
I therefore hope that the Committee will accept the new Clause.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: I cannot help feeling very depressed at the fact that the Minister of State, Board of Trade, who has special responsibility for shipping matters, has only just come into the Chamber, and has not heard more of the debate, and, in particular, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd). Hon. Members on this side of the Committee appreciate the work which the hon. Member is seeking to do for the industry, but it has been a depressing experience to have seen accountants and Whips and not much else on the Government Front Bench throughout this debate.
The shipping industry has been woefully neglected by the party opposite. The proposed Clause will have a considerable effect not only on the major shipyards,


but on much smaller boat builders. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) and my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone have been thinking of the larger shipbuilders—the people who are building ships of considerable tonnage. I would remind the Committee that these provisions will apply equally to the much smaller shipbuilders, building much smaller tonnages.
These people are increasing in number and are among the stars of our export market. It is impossible to be a star in the export market without the help of the home industry. It is, therefore, essential to the smaller as well as the larger firms that Clauses such as this should be agreed to. I hope that the Financial Secretary will look seriously at the needs of the smaller shipbuilders.
I also hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the needs of a healthy home market. It seems to me a very poor state of affairs that hon. Members on this side of the Committee should be in a majority throughout such a debate as this, and that the benches opposite should be half empty.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: We have come at last to the last of this series of new Clauses on behalf of the Chamber of Shipping, designed to assist our shipping industry. We have discussed them at great length, and I do not wish to detain the Committee for long, but there are one or two points that I want to make. The Government have listened to the debates on this subject with care, and the hon. Member who has responsibility for shipping matters has usually endeavoured to be here to hear the discussions. The Ministers concerned and the Chief Secretary, together with the hon. Member in an earlier debate, have promised to give full consideration to the needs of this industry.
As recently as yesterday the Chancellor cited the Geddes Committee and other committees which are engaged on an examination of the shipping industry. I would like to see something a little more positive than these general promises. The Finance Bill is the major instrument of Government policy for a year, and if the Government do not take this opportunity of drafting a new proposal for the Report

stage they will have missed a valuable opportunity and perhaps postponed for a vital year their chance to give effect to their promises to help the industry.
My constituency interests, which I have often declared, extend not only to shipping, but to shipbuilding, and by giving positive assistance to the industry we can assist our shipbuilders to operate in parts of the country where there are serious employment difficulties, including our own yards in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Chief Secretary will give a firm indication of Government policy on this issue.
I support what has been said by my. hon. Friends in support of the new Clause. Its purpose is to increase the investment allowances, as has been made clear. I believe that the Government have already accepted that the shipping industry is in a peculiar position in that its profits fluctuate dramatically from year to year, that it must even out its expenditure and profits in a way that no other industry must, taking the good with the bad, and that it can suffer several years of depression followed by several years of boom. Unless the industry is able to average these things over a number of years, it will be at a distinct disadvantage compared with foreign shipowners operating under other flags and more lenient tax arrangements.
The Clause takes these variations into account and seeks to help by increasing the investment allowances. It is felt by those who have studied the Bill that the proposals of the Government will have the effect of increasing the industry's Corporation Tax burden. Although I had an exchange on this issue with the Chief Secretary earlier, I believe that it is accepted that Corporation Tax at 35 per cent. or 40 per cent. might have the effect of increasing the amount of tax which is raised from companies and that this will be done at the expense of the investment allowances. The Clause would result in that increase being offset for shipowners.
It also takes into account the fact that shipowners, in planning their investment programmes, must, in such a capital intensive industry, pay particular attention—unlike some of the other industries which have been mentioned—to the level of the investment allowances. Decisions to build new ships can be vitally affected


by a variation of 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. in those rates. We must also remember the long period—which also fluctuates—between the decision to order a new ship or replace a boat and the actual placing of the order, the construction of the vessel, the launching, the ship going into commission and the final payment.
A variation in the investment allowances might damage the financial strength of the shipping companies concerned. I suggest, therefore, that the Clause provides a practical way by which the Financial Secretary could give special consideration to the shipping industry; can take into account the periods of delay between building and completion, the large sums of money involved, often several millions of pounds, and the other difficulties which have been mentioned.
I hope that the Government will try to make it a little easier for the shipping companies to survive against the type of foreign competition which exists today.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): It is common ground in the Committee that there is, as the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) said, a special case for helping the shipping industry. That is the common ground from which we start. Where the differences of opinion lie is, perhaps, on the question of the best method by which the industry can be helped, particularly—since we are discussing the Finance Bill—whether certain provisions in the Measure provide the best way of helping. It is only on that point that there have been differences of view.
Because we have already debated the general background—not only of the shipping industry, but the whole question of capital allowances of one kind and another—I am sure that the Committee would not wish me to go at length into the matters of description again but to deal more particularly with the arguments which have been put forward.
I do not want it to go out from the Committee that we are discussing an industry which is not capable from time to time of achieving striking results. Although the profits of the shipping industry have had a dip for some time, nevertheless, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) reminded

me, one of his constituents, Harland and Wolff, in very recent weeks has obtained an order for building the largest ship in the world. We take pleasure in that and congratulate the hon. Member and his famous constituents. We wish them luck and hope that it is a very successful and comfortably completed contract without any difficulties on the way.

Mr. McMaster: I thank the Chief Secretary for that reference, but does he not consider it most unfortunate that while the Norwegians have placed this order, which shows that our costs are competitive, Shell has placed orders for three boats in Japan and Germany—

The Temporary Chairman: Order.

Mr. Diamond: I gather your view is, Mr. Steele, that that is an entirely different matter.
The present situation, having regard to the existing system of allowances, is that a shipping company acquiring a new ship can write off 55 per cent. in the first year. That is a very substantial figure. The hon. Gentleman should not shake his head because this is a fact. If he was referring to something very different again, I apologise.
Fifty-five per cent. is a very large figure indeed for any owner of industry or service to be able to write off against the cost of his newly acquired asset in the first year. Most firms, for ordinary commercial purposes and for the purposes of preparing their balance sheet, think this too large a figure to carry. That is the present situation, but no doubt we shall be told that as we are introducing the Corporation Tax this will have an effect. Indeed it does have an effect. It has the effect of encouraging every company to plough back more, rather than to distribute dividends. It certainly does not devalue investment allowances—that is a completely erroneous and fallacious conception. This does not happen at all, and it is demonstrated in the shipping industry. Capital allowances are equal to profits or greater, and therefore one gets no tax payable. It would not matter whether the allowances were greater because there still would be no tax payable. An investment allowance is in fact a tax deduction and not a subsidy. That is the present situation.
Corporation Tax, however, has the effect on the shipping and other industries, of preventing a company from continuing the anomaly which has been referred to in critical terms by the Public Accounts Committee of paying dividends allegedly after deduction of tax and enabling the recipients to reclaim from the Revenue tax which has never been paid.
It is in that respect and in that respect only that the Corporation Tax will affect the shipping industry. Representations are made to us to alleviate the situation. Much as we are anxious to help the shipping industry, we are not prepared so to alter the provisions of the Corporation Tax as to enable companies in future to continue this practice which Parliament criticised in the way I have indicated.
The question arises how we can help the shipping industry. Hon. Members speaking to this Clause have said that this could be done by giving free depreciation as is given in the development districts. In the development districts, free depreciation does not apply where one has mobile equipment, and will therefore not apply to any shipping firm in a development district. Hon. Members are therefore seeking to say, "Let us have free depreciation on ships as if they were immobile and in a development district".
It is an interesting suggestion, and I have many times in previous debates referred from the other side of the Chamber to the possibility of using free depreciation as an encouragement to industry. So I am not ill-disposed to the idea of free depreciation, but quite the contrary. I am well disposed towards the industry, I want to help it, but free depreciation will not help it at all.
The shipping industry has already accumulated, as we all agree, a very large figure of capital allowances of one kind and another—in excess of £150 million already. Free depreciation is of benefit to the taxpayer only when he is in a situation in which he would otherwise be paying tax immediately, and wants to write off the whole of his depreciation at once so as to avoid the tax immediately. The industry is supremely the case in which that does not apply. All the arguments have been based on the fact that the industry is going through

a difficult period and must look ahead. To give the industry free depreciation would merely result in enabling certain companies to increase these unused credits they already possess to place against tax liability when they are not rendering themselves liable to pay tax—

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: But surely the right hon. Gentleman would admit that prosperous times may be ahead and is not saying that the cycle will not change.

Mr. Diamond: I very much hope that the cycle is already upon us and that we are already going uphill so fast that we can hardly keep on the graph paper. I hope so, but what I am demonstrating to the hon. Gentleman is that although he is anxious to help the industry, he is not doing so. He himself is asking: "What about the future?" I repeat that free depreciation is a method for helping now, not in the future. It is of no help to an industry that can only make use of it in the future. Free depreciation gives to a taxpayer the alternative of charging the whole depreciation now; that means not charging anything in future years.
I therefore hope that I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that our sympathy with the shipping industry and our desire to help it means that we do not want to fob it off with an arrangement, albeit put forward with great sincerity by hon. Members opposite, which will really not give it any more help at all, but will merely give the firms concerned further credit notes with which to paper the walls of their offices. That is of no real help to the industry.
The hon. Gentleman may say, "The Chief Secretary has made many speeches on this subject"—that is perfectly true—"What are he and the Government doing to help the industry?" My first answer is that I am not deceiving the industry into thinking that this is a method of helping it. My second answer is—and I hope I am not deceiving the industry—that during the course of the week there will take place the fifth Ministerial meeting with representatives of the industry at which my right hon. Friend and other Ministers are attending.
Four such meetings have already taken place. It would not be proper in any sense at all to indicate the nature of the


discussions, but they are going on with a view to covering the ground and seeing in what ways we can help an industry which we are all anxious to help and which is vital to the welfare of the country for our invisible exports, and for a number of other reasons. I therefore suggest that although the Clause has been put forward with great sincerity, it is of no help to the shipping industry we all desire to assist.

Mr. William Clark: I am sure we are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) for having introduced this Clause, and nobody would deny him his interest in the shipping industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) has said, the Chancellor's own connection with the Admiralty precludes him from denying its importance, and for my part I should have thought that his connection with Brixham would also have prevented his denying its great value to the nation.
Yet, the fact is that the industry has had a period of low profit and all my hon. Friends are trying to do is to give it the same benefits as are at present available to the development districts under free depreciation. The Government, or the other hand, just continues to pay lip-service to the needs of this industry, and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast. East (Mr. McMaster) brought this out very well. The Chief Secretary merely entertained the Committee to a repetition of debates we have already had on Corporation Tax.
What has the Government done? I do not intend at this hour to reiterate all the facts about overseas competition in the shipping industry, and, as my hon. Friends have so well demonstrated, it does face very severe competition from flag discrimination and the subsidies which many countries offer and which the Minister with special responsibilities for shipping must know about. A basic point of our Clause is what it would cost the Government; and, in the long run, the answer is precisely nothing. It would cost nothing if this Clause were conceded. The Chief Secretary knows that if one really accelerated the allowances due on a ship or other piece of equipment, all that would happen would be that, instead of getting the amount

written off in four or five years, it would be written off in the first year.
That is a fact, yet the Chief Secretary continually comes back to this question of the £150 million of unused allowances in the industry. If this is the position, and British shipping companies have a proportion of this amount, then giving us this new Clause would mean there was no cost to the Exchequer at all. It would merely add to the £150 million, although this is presupposing that all shipping companies have allowances carried forward. But this is not the case, as the Chief Secretary must know. It is no use at all his generalising by way of saying that over the whole sphere of this industry there is £150 million of unused credit and so there is no company which could benefit from an accelerated free depreciation allowance.
Furthermore, there is no question of tax avoidance here because, if there is free depreciation allowance, there is also the balancing charge so that the Exchequer recoups the difference between the allowances given and the sale price of the ship. That being so, I cannot understand what is the Chief Secretary's objection. I am glad to see that the Chancellor has now returned. [Interruption.] I have already paid tribute to his interest in the shipping industry.
The real nub of this matter is that we are sincerely convinced by the fact that the Corporation Tax is going to hit, not only the shipping industry, but many other industrial activities in this country; and that is the real difference between the two sides of the Committee. We have had many arguments on short fall, overstalling, and the rest, and I do not intend to canvass again all those debates but to deplore the fact that while the Government continues to pay lip-service to industry they also continue to say, "We want to help industry". In no case have the Government given the help of which they speak.
Here, I am afraid, we have another case of the Government saying one thing and doing another. Here is yet again a case of the Government saying, "Yes, we want to help", while doing nothing at all really to help. In fact, the absolute reverse is the case. We on this side of the Committee thought the Chief Secretary's reply extremely disappointing,


extremely repetitive and extremely unsatisfactory.

Question put and negatived.

Mr. Diamond: I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
We have reached a stage when the Opposition benches are extremely empty and hon. Members opposite are looking extremely tired. They obviously need rest and recuperation. It would be unfair to press any matter to a Division as we have exactly twice as many hon. Members in the Chamber on the Government side as there are on the Opposition side.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

Committee counted, and, 40 Members being present—

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Diamond: It would be welcomed on both sides of the Committee in all the circumstances that we should discontinue the debate now. Another day has been allowed for debate tomorrow. We can deal with the rest of the new Clauses and the Schedules and have time for the remaining business put down for tomorrow.

Mr. Heath: To those of us who have sat here during these lengthy debates it is becoming somewhat noticeable that the Government benches become thronged only from 11 o'clock onwards when members of the Government come in too anxious that the Motion to report Progress should be moved so that they can flee to their beds. They having found themselves after two days of concentrated debate unable to stand the strain and the Leader of the House having announced this afternoon that there was to be an additional day on the new Clauses, the Chief Secretary has promptly moved to report Progress.
We have today covered more than half the new Clauses and it ought to be possible tomorrow to complete consideration of the remainder, but there is one consideration. We have had to listen to a series of pontifications from the Treasury Bench and in between some of my hon. Friends have been able to get in a word or two. So powerful and persuasive have they been that we have achieved the great success of persuading the Govern-

ment to accept a new Clause which will be a great benefit to the blind. This has been well worth while and justifies the efforts we have made to secure this arrangement. Therefore I think the Committee can feel that we have made further progress and tomorrow we should be able to dispense with the rest of the new Clauses and the remainder of the Schedules.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

EQUAL PAY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

11.15 p.m.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: I welcome this opportunity to raise the subject of equal pay for women, in other words the rate for the job, or equal remuneration for work of equal value. It is a subject which receives rare attention in the House but is of great interest to people outside as is shown in tonight's Evening News which bears the headline, "Women's Pay: New Union Drive." It is unusual to have the opportunity of raising this subject in the House.
I would remind the House of the long history of this matter. As long ago as 1944 to 1946 a Royal Commission looked into the question of equal pay and in the end produced a long report which was a detailed analysis of the whole subject. Every type of profession and industry was examined. Equal pay in other countries was examined. The social and economic consequences of equal pay were examined. Yet here we are, twenty years after the Royal Commission's Report was published, with the Government still saying that they are now examining the social and economic consequences of equal pay.
It is true that since the Report women in the professions have achieved equal pay in Government jobs and in nationalised industries, but the fact remains that there are 8½ million women workers doing the same work as men and only 10 per cent. of these women have equal pay. May I give some examples of these industries? In agriculture women drive tractors and work with men in haymaking


and harvesting, yet a Ministry of Labour report for September, 1964, shows that women receive approximately 76 per cent. of the rate for men. Bank clerks at the age of 31 receive—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. We cannot discuss bank clerks. The Government have no responsibility for them.

Dr. Summerskill: I am sorry. I will leave bank clerks. I have plenty of other examples, but I should like hon. Members to bear bank clerks in mind and perhaps look up the details about them after this debate. In engineering—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must confine her remarks to those matters for which the Government have responsibility.

Dr. Summerskill: I understand that it will be in order for me to refer to engineers in ordnance factories. Half a million women are employed in this occupation and the rate of pay is 30s. less for the adult woman worker than for a man. There are situations in which women adult workers doing skilled and semi-skilled work at machines are receiving 30s. a week less than the man who sweeps the floor. Sir William Carron, speaking to his union about equal pay, said recently that we ought to be ashamed as a nation at the way in which we have been or are now being overhauled by other nations in this respect. In the catering trade—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The Government are not responsible for the catering trade. The hon. Lady must deal with persons employed by the Government and for whom the Government have responsibility.

Dr. Summerskill: I should like to point out that I wish the Government to initiate measures to cover all these sections of the community.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady cannot advocate that on the Adjournment. It would involve legislation.

Dr. Summerskill: I will confine my remarks, then, to the question of the basic, right and just measures which should be taken to achieve equal pay for women.

Mr. William Yates (The Wrekin): On a point of order. The hon. Lady would be in order, would she not, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if she confined her remarks to equal pay for those in Government service or who are generally connected with or in some way receive State aid or funds? Under the National Assistance and other laws, many of the people to whom the hon. Lady is referring receive aid from the State.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: Further to that point of order. Would not my hon. Friend be in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in drawing attention to certain broad principles and then illustrating those broad principles by individual examples? Is that not in order on the Adjournment?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady can refer only to those for whom the Government are responsible. She is perfectly in order to deal with problems arising where the persons she is talking about are employed by Her Majesty's Government.

Dr. Summerskill: I wish to see the Government taking responsibility for the pay of these sections of the community—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady cannot continue with that. It would involve legislation. We cannot deal with legislation on the Adjournment.

Dr. Summerskill: Then I shall try to confine myself to the broad aspects of the issue.
The question of equal pay should not be receiving discussion in this way but is a basic right of every woman who is working. Equal pay should not be regarded as a privilege or as something which has to be requested or asked for. Members of Parliament receive equal pay. We are the legislators, and we should see to it that everybody else in the country has the right that we have seen that we have for ourselves.
The incomes policy which the Government have recently introduced is neither fair nor just if it does not include, as it has not included, equal pay within its context. The news to which I drew attention earlier, which has appeared


today on the front page of the Evening News, was the result of the annual conference of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, comprising 31 unions. Mrs. Marie Patterson pointed out that it took only just over six months to establish a prices and incomes policy and all the machinery that went with it, which was a huge undertaking, and yet there was no mention in the incomes policy of equal pay.
It is 14 years since, in 1951, the International Labour Organisation adopted a convention that favoured the equal remuneration of women. Forty-four countries have ratified the convention, but the United Kingdom has not. The Common Market countries, under the Treaty of Rome, are bound to ensure and maintain the adoption of equal pay conditions for women. In these ways, it is a disgrace that Britain is lagging behind other industrial countries.
Looked at from the economic point of view, women make up one-third of our total labour force and the number of women working outside the home is increasing all the time. One-third of married women work outside the home. We wish to encourage women to go into industry, engineering, nursing, teaching and any form of labour, and yet women will obviously tend to go to jobs where they receive equal pay with men and to keep away from the other jobs in which they are treated as second-grade workers.
Perhaps women are not sufficiently strike-minded or sufficiently trade union-minded. If they were, we would have had equal pay far quicker than this.
Employers are using women as cheap labour in many cases. Incidentally, this causes men to be undercut by women, especially when automation is increased. Employers say that they cannot afford to pay women full salaries. This will lead to costs going up and prices going up.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is true that Britain's economy can only be maintained by employing a large proportion of cut-price labour. Is the employer within his rights in taking on more staff than he can properly afford to pay? If a company employs 50 men and 50 women and cannot afford to pay a

100 standard wages, how does it choose which 50 it can afford to pay?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Everybody is sensible to the hon. Lady's difficulty, but we suffer the disadvantage of the rules of the House on this point. When she asks the Minister questions, I have to protect him, because he will not be able to reply. By her good fortune, the hon. Lady has an opportunity under the Ten Minute Rule on 6th July that will leave her with the widest possible scope to deal with this subject. We cannot enter on this question on matters that require legislation for remedy.

Dr. Summerskill: I think I have made my case in the short time that I have spoken and I would just ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he could give the House some facts about the position as it stands at the moment from the Government's point of view. I do not wish the Government to appear to the public, as I think they do at present, as being evasive or procrastinating on this. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to take the opportunity of telling the House when the Government will take measures to introduce equal pay for women. Is it to be this year, next year, or is it some time? Does the Parliamentary Secretary feel that the incomes policy can be just or fair when it does not include equal pay in its programme?
If I could get the answer to those questions I would feel that the evening had been worth while. Women in Britain are very patient. But I think their patience is running out and they would like to see the Government practising equality as well as preaching it.

11.29 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Thornton): I welcome the opportunity to discuss this proposition and I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) over her difficulties because of the rules of the House. I hope, however, that the rules of the House will permit me to give her some indication of what the Government feel and of what we are doing on this particular subject.
I was, as I think she knows, for 35 years a full-time trade union secretary in the textile industry, an industry which employs a substantial majority of women.


There is in that industry a principle of equal pay for work of equal value. I say that only to let her see that I am speaking from experience as well as from conviction. It has always been my trade union purpose to insist upon, and to fight for, the principle of equal pay. Critics and cynics would say that in those cases where there is equal pay it often results in low or medium wages for men and relatively high wages for women. I do not of necessity accept this criticism. In industry at large the payment of low wages to women is often sheer discrimination, tolerated only because it is a familiar injustice of long standing and perhaps because it appeals to some men's vanity that they should be accorded a higher value in the labour market.
I do not, of course, mean that all work should be rewarded equally, regardless of the amount of effort or skill or responsibility which it requires. Differentials based on this type of consideration are not discrimination. But I think that we all agree that existing distinctions go well beyond this and have resulted over a wide area in women receiving less pay than they otherwise would, simply because of their sex.
It would be wrong, however, to speak as if the equal pay movement in this country has hitherto been a failure and that nothing has happened. It may well be that we are behind other advanced industrial countries in this respect, but there has been some progress. In the non-industrial Civil Service equal pay was achieved by seven annual stages, at the beginning of 1961. Similarly, there is equal pay in the clerical grades in local government, electricity supply, gas, the coal industry and the Health Service. Women teachers achieved it in April, 1961, and at the end of 1961 it applied in all administrative, technical and clerical grades in the then British Transport Commission.
As we all know, equal pay does not generally apply in manual employment, whether it be Government or public service or private industry. There are, however, a number of collective agreements relating to manual workers which incorporate the principle. In general, they relate to cases in which women replace men or do men's work. There are many examples, which I need not enumerate.
As my hon. Friend indicated, the movement for equal pay has a long history behind it. Interest in the subject and the problem has been greater at some periods than at others. I think it true to say that the last war created considerable interest in the possibilities of further progress. The Royal Commission of 1944 sat for two years and produced a detailed Report.
In spite of this, and the developments in later years, it is still the case that in this country—where there are about 8 million women in employment—only about 2¼ million of them are in sectors in which equal pay is the general rule. There is still a long way to go. My Party accordingly gave a pledge in 1963 that, if returned to power, they would seek at an early appropriate stage in their first term of office to consider ways and means of implementing equal pay. This is the process in which we are now engaged. As the House knows, we set up an inter-Departmental Working Party to consider some of the issues involved in implementing the principle of equal pay. As I told the House on 14th June, my right hon. Friend expects this Committee to be reporting within a few weeks. I believe that on 14th June I said that it would be in two or three weeks, but in fact it may be a little longer than this. When we have this Report we shall have to examine and consider in the light of the Report what should be the next step. At the moment I am not in a position to say more than that we are pressing on as quickly as we can with these matters and we will continue to do so.
There are, however, one or two points which I think it would be appropriate for me to touch on now. The first is the important aspect of how much equal pay would cost. This, I would point out to my hon. Friend, is not an easy calculation to make. There are differing interpretations of the meaning of equal pay and there is a lot of uncertainty about the practical effect of introducing it. But the cost is something that we are bound to consider very seriously because it may well have implications for our incomes policy. It is also very relevant when we are considering what priority should be given to equal pay, as compared with other desirable objectives. This question of cost is one that we will have to keep very much in mind.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that there is a cost argument against equal pay, and is he arguing that the women workers of this country should subsidise the present wages system? Is this not an intolerable and socially unjust conception?

Mr. Thornton: We have to estimate the cost before we would be justified in devising ways and means of attempting its implementation. It would be quite unrealistic to ignore the cost element involved.
There is another point that I would like to make about this complex question. Deciding on the best means of making progress is by no means easy. Some preliminary thought has been given to it by the working party and we will have to consider it after we have their report. There is a danger of oversimplifying a complex problem.
I am glad that my hon. Frend was able to raise this matter and I know how strongly she feels on it. I have taken careful note of the points which she has made and these I will certainly discuss with my right hon. Friend. I assure her that we will certainly take them into account in our future consideration of these matters.

11.39 p.m.

Mr. William Yates: I am certain that not only the House but the whole country will be grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House tonight. We on these benches appreciate the difficulty in which she felt obliged to make her speech and,

because of that, we are even more sympathetic. We know, too, that we have heard great things about policies and general discussions about social justice from those who sit on the benches opposite. Let the hon. Lady and the Government be assured that we all share the same anxieties as the hon. Lady. If she is looking for support from the back benches of the House, I am certain that she will get it.
I am grateful for what the Parliamentary Secretary said in outlining the general policy and his attitude towards equal pay in the Departments of State and the nationalised industries for which he is responsible. The Government are also responsible for the social welfare of the whole country and therefore it is very important that we all do what we can to support the hon. Lady. There must be social justice right through the economy, the economic policy and the wage structure, and one section of the community should not have to support or sustain the wages or economy of another part of it.
Let the hon. Lady be assured that her Bill will be received with interest when in due course it comes before the House. We on this side are deeply grateful to the hon. Lady at this late hour and after the 700th anniversary celebrations, for doing us the kindness of having this Adjournment debate and giving us the opportunity of saying that we will support her.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.